Android Phone

iPad

iPhone

Windows

Canadian Dollar

Euro

Norwegian Krone

New Zealand Dollar

Polish Zloty

South African Rand

Hungarian Forint

1x2 Gaming

Amatic

Belatra Games

Betsoft

BGAMING

Booming Games

Casino Technology

Elk Studios

Endorphina

Epic Media

Evolution Gaming

Habanero

Infingame

iSoftBet

KA Gaming

Lucky Streak

MrSlotty

NetEnt

Nolimit City

Nucleus Gaming

Platipus

Play'n Go

Playtech

Pragmatic Play

QuickSpin

Relax Gaming

Spinomenal

Thunderkick

Tom Horn Gaming

Wazdan

Yggdrasil Gaming

Maneki Casino

Master Card

Neosurf

Neteller

Paysafecard

Rapidtransfer

Skrill

Sofort

Trustly

VISA

Bank Transfer

Chat

Email

Hi erdy52 - welcome to ThePOGG.com!

Please ensure you have read our <a href="https://thepogg.com/alternative-dispute-resolution-what-is-it-how-do-gambling-complaint-services-differ/">Complaint Guidance</a> to ensure that you fully understand how our complaint management process functions.

As we are the ADR for the N1 Interactive Ltd license under the Malta Gaming Authority license there is certain information we have to provide you now.

You can find all the relevant information about this service here – http://thepogg.com/terms-of-use/ and the terms of use for our complaint service here - https://thepogg.com/terms-of-use-for-dispute-resolution-service/

To summarise.

– Use of this service does not preclude your seeking redress through court proceedings .

– This service is free to use for both the complainant and operator.

– At any point during the procedure the submitting party retains the right to withdraw their complaint. This does not preclude our right to continue the discussion with the involved operator of general issues related to the complaint (i.e. insufficiently clear terms and conditions).

– You are not obliged to obtain independent or legal advice or representation, though you may choose to do so.

While we understand the root of your claim, and there were some N1 Interactive licensees that for a period of time were displayed incorrect information about their self-exclusion policies, this is a group that has allowed individual operators control of the content on their websites. What this means is that while, as the other claim evidenced, Spinia may have displayed incorrect information, it does not necessarily follow that other operators on the license did.

Before we could pursue a claim of this nature we would need to be able to evidence that the property that you played at displayed the incorrect information. Can you provide this?

This could be any of the properties that you self-excluded at, so you should also gather any data you can evidencing where and when you self-excluded.

Do you have records of your self-exclusion requests?

You may find our free Responsible Gambling app <a href="https://betblocker.org/">BetBlocker</a> useful. It allows users to restrict their internet capable devices from accessing over 18k gambling operator websites for between 24 hours and 5 years.

You can also find information on the various support agencies available to support you in your country in our <a href="https://thepogg.betblocker.org/">Responsible Gambling Directory</a>.

Thanks,

ThePOGG

Dear thePogg,
First and foremost, I would like to revise the requested reimbursement to €15,600, as I noticed that I hadn't received a DSAR file from N1 Casino.

Timeline of Events:

26th January 2020: First deposit on N1casino.com.
20th February 2020: Permanent self-exclusion from Maneki Casino.
17th April 2020: Permanent self-exclusion from Crazy Fox.
17th June 2020: Permanent self-exclusion from Casino Buck.
7th July 2020: Permanent self-exclusion from EU Slot.
27th May 2021: Permanent self-exclusion from Betamo.
30th May 2021: Permanent self-exclusion from Betchan.
23rd September 2022: Permanent self-exclusion from N1 Casino.

I can provide evidence of all self-exclusions via the DSAR files I requested from each casino.

Financial Overview:

Total deposits: €20,590
Total withdrawals: €2,743
Net loss: €17,847
Net loss (Excluding deposits/withdrawals from Maneki Casino): €15,600
Self-Exclusion Details:

My initial permanent self-exclusion occurred on 20th February 2020 at Maneki Casino, marking my first exclusion from a brand within the N1 Interactive License. While I don't have specific screenshots from that time, I distinctly recall encountering the license-wide exclusion terms at another N1 Interactive Ltd brand around that period. Furthermore, N1 Interactive Ltd marketed themselves heavily to the Swedish market during this time period, via so called affiliates. They were actually banned from this practise by the Swedish Gambling Authority on 1 July 2020. This was later revoked, but my point is that Swedish users like myself were exposed to several of N1 Interactive Ltd:s brands during this period.

Effort to Request Historical Terms & Conditions:

Despite my efforts to retrieve historical terms & conditions from Maneki, their lack of response and failure to correct any misinformation raise concerns. To supplement this, I utilized Wayback Machine (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇) to access historical terms & conditions from different brands. This method is has it's cons though, as all relevant dates and/or URL:s aren't always accessible. Unfortunately, this means I couldn't retrieve data for all brands, including Maneki, but I did obtain information from EU Slot on 28th June 2020, supporting my claim of license-wide exclusion.

Player Protection Directive Compliance:

Referring to the Player Protection Directive, specifically Part III – Terms and Conditions (6)(4) and (6)(7):

Licensees are mandated to have only one version of terms & conditions across all brands.
In cases of conflict, the version most beneficial to the player prevails.
Conclusion and Final Arguments:

I have provided evidence from EU Slot's historical terms & conditions, explicitly stating license-wide self-exclusion. I presume that EU Slots:s terms & conditions were valid on the date of my self-exclusion from Maneki Casino. Considering the Directive's emphasis on the version most beneficial to the player prevailing, I urge N1 Interactive Ltd to reimburse me for all net losses incurred across their license post my initial self-exclusion from Maneki Casino.

I have calculated the total net loss (excluding Maneki Casino transactions) at €15,600 and kindly request reimbursement of this amount. I see no issues if N1 Interactive Ltd and/or relevant brands control this sum to ensure my calculations are correct.

I appreciate your attention to this matter and look forward to a prompt resolution.

Kind regards,
▇▇▇▇

Hi erdy52,

The Player Protection Directive does not and has not ever required licensees to provide the same terms of use across all of their sites. I'm unsure why you think that it does?

The other cases associated to this issue have not necessarily related to terms and condition, but rather incorrect information outside of terms and conditions documents.

As stated in our previous response, you would need to evidence that you were provided incorrect information at the point of your self-exclusion. Your "recollection" would not be sufficient in this situation.

Finally, if you are looking to have Swedish licensing standards enforced, you would need to contact the Swedish regulator. We act for the MGA license.

Forward the self-exclusion requests to <a href="mailto:complaints@thepogg.com">complaints@thepogg.com</a>. However, we will again point out that without proof that you were provided with the incorrect information at the time of your exclusion it is very unlikely that we will be able to build a valid claim on your behalf.

Thanks,

ThePOGG

Hi erdy52,

I'm following-up on the above?

Thanks,

ThePOGG

Hello,

▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇

Here above is a link to a snapshot from Wayback Machine of the terms and conditions of EU Slot per 28th June 2020. As I self-excluded on 7th July, I presume those were the same terms that were valid on the 7th of July

The Wayback Machine link shows how the T&C looked like on 28th of June 2020 and it says it was effective from 10.01.2019 and last updated on 18.06.2020. Please like let me know if you need a screenshot of this and if so, where I can send it.

As you can see - it clearly says this under the section Responsible Gambling:
 “WHAT IS SELF-EXCLUSION?
Setting Self-exclusion lets us know that we need to take all measures to block your access to your account and make sure that you receive no promotional materials. You may also contact our support team at ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ and inform us about your decision to stop gambling at the Website for a certain period of time or forever. Self-exclusion due to gambling problems means that you will be barred from play at all online casinos under the participating licence.”

I believe this implies that there is a high probability that these specific T&C were valid prior to 2020-07-07 20:26:59 - thus spanning over the time I self-excluded from Maneki on 2020-02-20 2:04.

This brings me to my next argument - where I actually do believe is supported by the Player Protection Directive.

What does the Player Protection Directive say about Terms & Conditions?

Part III – Terms and Conditions 6 (4)
“B2C licensees shall ensure that they do not have more than one (1) version of the general
terms and conditions applicable to the provision of the gaming service licensed by the
Authority at any point in time.
 Provided that, where the B2C licensee operates multiple brands, the B2C licensee
shall ensure that each brand shall only have one (1) version of the general terms and
conditions applicable at any point in time. For the avoidance of doubt, the same terms
and conditions provided in more than one (1) language do not constitute more than one
(1) version.”

Part III – Terms and Conditions 6 (7)
 “All terms and conditions shall always, at the very least, be provided in either the English
and, or Maltese language, and in the case of conflict with any other versions, the version
which is most beneficial to the player shall prevail.”

My interpretation:
My interpretation of the two above excerpts is that a licensee operating multiple brands - like for example N1 Interactive - is that they are required to have only 1 version of their terms & conditions across all brands applicable at any given time.

Although I expect that minor deviations are allowed - I see the part regarding license wide self-exclusion to be a major deviation.

It is clearly stated that
“the version which is most beneficial to the player shall prevail”

I would argue that the vast majority of people who gamble will end up losing their money. Losing money is simply put - not beneficial to the player.

Additionally - if a user decides to self-exclude - this strongly implies he or she suffers from problem gambling. For a problem gambler, a license wide exclusion would most be most certainly be most beneficial for the player.

Summary and final arguments
I have provided evidence that the terms & conditions for EUslot as of 28th of June 2020 - clearly stated that any self-exclusion should be applicable from all casinos under the participating license - in other words - all casino brands under N1 Interactive Ltd.

The Directive 2 of 2018 Player Protection Directive clearly states that the Terms & Conditions version most beneficial for the player should prevail, in cases when significant discrepancies exist.

Both in general, but also in my specific circumstances, a license wide self-exclusion would be most beneficial. Although it may be unclear exactly how the terms & conditions looked like at Maneki Casino when I self-excluded - this in my opinion shouldn’t be entirely relevant.

As long as N1 Interactive Ltd are unable to prove that the terms & conditions of EU Slot weren’t different regarding what is says about responsible gambling on 2020-02-20, then they should abide to the terms and conditions applicable for EU slot.

Due to this, I find it reasonable for N1 Interactive Ltd to reimburse me for all net losses generated across the N1 Interactive Ltd license after my initial permanent self-exclusion from Maneki Casino, which was applied by me on 2020-02-20 2:04.

Hi erdy52,

For the information to be relevant to your claim it would have had to be on the Maneki Casino website, the site that you excluded at.

Thanks,

ThePOGG

Hi again,

I have reached out to MGA to see if they can provide the historical T&C:s of Maneki at the date of my self-exclusion, Maneki still hasn't provided this. 

Can you for now at least confirm that any deposits and/or registrations shouldn
t have been approved after the time of my exclusion from EU Slot? 

I must say though, that I still see that Part III – Terms and Conditions 6 (4) is pretty clear about the fact that a licensee can't have several brands with different T&C  which clearly gives players better or worse terms depending on which brand they use  - or do you disagree to this?

Hi erdy52,

Yes - a claim may be possible from EUSlots forward based on the dates in question (i.e. the brands AFTER EUSlots) depending on various factors. Please provide details of what you feel your net losses have been after this point.

The Player Protection Directive reads as follows:

<blockquote style="border: 2px solid #666;padding: 10px;background-color: #ccc">"(4) B2C licensees shall ensure that they do not have more than one (1) version of the general terms and conditions applicable to the provision of the gaming service licensed by the Authority at any point in time.

Provided that, where the B2C licensee operates multiple brands, the B2C licensee
shall ensure that each brand shall only have one (1) version of the general terms and
conditions applicable at any point in time. For the avoidance of doubt, the same terms and conditions provided in more than one (1) language do not constitute more than one (1) version. "</blockquote>

Each brand is allowed its own set of terms and conditions. No brand can have more than one set of terms and conditions approved at any time.

Thanks,

ThePOGG

Hello again,

While I understand that each brand can have its own set of T&Cs, I remain convinced that responsible gambling policies, particularly self-exclusion, should be consistent across brands under the same license to protect players at risk and avoid any doubts or confusion. This aligns with the spirit of the Player Protection Directive:

Part III – Terms and Conditions 6 (4): Emphasizes one version of general T&Cs across brands. While individual T&Cs might be allowed, key policies like self-exclusion, crucial for player protection, should be consistent.

Part III – Terms and Conditions 6 (7): The "most beneficial version for the player prevails." License-wide self-exclusion clearly benefits vulnerable players seeking help across a brand's network.

With respect, I disagree with your interpretation that brands can have inconsistent self-exclusion policies. Such inconsistencies create confusion and potentially harm players trying to self-exclude, which contradicts the Directive's goal of player protection.

I reiterate my request for:

Reimbursement of my net losses after my initial self-exclusion from Maneki Casino (excluding Maneki losses themselves) and not only after my self-exclusion from EU Slot. 

I believe my net losses after the EU Slot self exclusion is around 500 Euros. This sum is disproportionate compared to my overall losses.

Hi erdy52,

While we appreciate that you feel that the regulations should be different to what they literally state, our role is to enforce the regulations as they actually are.

With respect to this matter:

i) brands on the same license ARE allowed to have different terms and conditions. 

ii) 6 (4) does NOT require a license to have a single set of terms used across all properties on the license. It allows each property to have only a single set of terms.

iii) 6 (7) relates to situations where the terms and conditions are offered in multiple languages and there is conflict in the meaning of the same terms due to translation. It has no bearing whatsoever on your claim.

iv) Consumer law does however require that where there is ambiguity in a consumer contract term that the interpretation most favourable to the consumer prevails. However, there is no ambiguity in interpretation of the operators terms in this case. There is a contention that misleading information about policy was presented to you, but to date you have not provided evidence that could verify that claim.

v) this licensee does use different terms at different brands.

vi) you claim relates to errors in the policies text relating to responsible gambling. The policy that was actually applied was in line with the licensed required standards. The errors in information provided by some of the brands of this license went beyond these license-required standards. This means that at all times the policies that were actually deployed were at least as robust as the MGA license requires. Where you are arguing that the stronger policies should be applied, you have to demonstrate that the error was present on the property you self-excluded at. Presently, you have only done that for Maneki Casino.

We're sorry you are frustrated, but our position is clear on this matter. You would have to evidence that the erroneous policy information was actually in place at the time of your exclusion and on the site that you excluded at before we would look for the operator to adhere to that policy.

Thanks,

ThePOGG

Date – 03/03/2023

This complaint has been checked. Work is ongoing on this matter. We will revert to you when we have new relevant information to share.

Thanks,

ThePOGG

Date – 10/03/2023

This complaint has been checked. Work is ongoing on this matter. We will revert to you when we have new relevant information to share.

Thanks,

ThePOGG

Hello,
EU slot and N1 Casino have sent me an email regarding refund today

Hello,

I want to confirm that I have received refunds from the brands Betamo and Betchan, which is much appreciated as it shows they care about responsible gambling.

I submitted by bank details to N1 Casino and EU Slot on March 18 but I have still not received the refunds from them now after around 10 business days, but I presume it is normal for this process to take some time.

I have still not received any messages the other brands Casinobuck, Crazyfox and Gslot which I believe should refund me aswell, if the refund decision was made based on the logic I have presented earlier. Can I expect to be contacted by any of these brands anytime soon?

Hi erdy52,

We'll clarify with the operator what is being refunded, but our expectation is as laid out previously - only play after the EU Slot exclusion would be subject to refund.

Thanks,

CasinoReviews.com Complaints Team

Date – 07/04/2023

This complaint has been checked. Work is ongoing on this matter. We will revert to you when we have new relevant information to share.

Thanks,

CasinoReviews.com Complaints Team

Date – 14/04/2023

This complaint has been checked. Work is ongoing on this matter. We will revert to you when we have new relevant information to share.

Thanks,

CasinoReviews.com Complaints Team

Hi erdy52,

We discussed this matter with the operator. As discussed above the deposits made after the EUSlots exclusion were due for refund and these payments have been processed on that basis:


- GSlots €425
- Betamo €45

There was also a clerical error and the following operators have issued payments incorrectly:


- Betamo €500
- Betchan €2000

The operator has opted to disregard these errors and allow you to retain them as a good will gesture.

Please confirm that you have received your funds.

Thanks,

CasinoReviews.com Complaints Team

Hello,
I must say I have very mixed feelings regarding the handling of this case by the operator. Both N1 Casino and EU Slot first confirmed I would receive refunds, just as Betamo and Betchan did. The refund amount from N1 Casino would have been substantial and made a big difference in my path towards recovery and I had already planned to use these refunds to pay off parts of my debts, so it's very off-putting  and difficult to be in my situation to first get a confirmation of a refund and then later hear that it was sent out by mistake. I hope you can understand and sympathize - given the circumstances - how this has affected my mental well-being the past week.

I have reached out politely to N1 Casino Support and EU Slot Support previously asking why the refund process was taking so long and if anything was wrong, but they just said they couldn't answer anything and just asked me to be patient, which I have been. I understand that human mistakes can happen, but In my opinion, it shouldn't take over a month to clearify that a mistake has happen - certainly not in a situation where they should know how important it is for the recepient of the information that it is in fact correct.

I would be more satisfied if they had informed me about the mistake early on and communicated this to be directly, instead of making me wait almost a month like they have done now.

Due to these circumstances, I hope that N1 Interactive Ltd can consider an additional good-will refund as a compensation for their lack of communication.

I have received the refunds from Betchan and Betamo,
I have not received these refunds however:

- GSlots €425
- Betamo €45

Hi erdy52,

As explained above, based on the evidence that you actually provided, you were not entitled to the refunds from Betchan or Betamo. These were processed in error and the operator are within their rights to request their return. They have chosen not to and view these good will gestures beyond what they are required to provide. Unless there is further evidence to introduce to this case, you should base any future expectations on the information that we have provided you directly.

Can you please provide a payment statement for the account in question showing the dates 14/04 up to today?

Thanks,

CasinoReviews.com Complaints Team

Hi erdy52,

We're following-up on our previous communication - can you please provide a payment statement for the account in question showing the dates 14/04 up to today?

Thanks,

CasinoReviews.com Complaints Team

Hello,
I have attached a statement showing all transactions from Apr 14 until May 6th related to the same bank account / IBAN I sent in the refund mails i received.  Unable to see any transactions related to the missing refunds. N1 Interactive / related brands haven't communicated anything to me regarding reasons for the delay or the fact that they first confirmed a refund and then took a month to just change their mind/ realize it was a mistake.

Date – 12/05/2024

This complaint has been checked. Work is ongoing on this matter. We will revert to you when we have new relevant information to share.

Thanks,

CasinoReviews.com Complaints Team

Hi erdy52,

The operator has confirmed that the payment in question did bounce. They have reissued it and you should receive it by the end of the month at the latest. We would appreciate it if you could confirm when you receive your funds.

Thanks,

CasinoReviews.com Complaints Team

Hello,

I can confirm I have received the refund from Gslot of EUR 425.

You previously mentioned an additional refund from Betamo of EUR 45.
I have not received this refund yet.

Hi erdy52,

Apologies. That was a mistake on our end. Please review our response on the 21st of April where it states that you'd been overpaid €500 by Betamo already. As such, the €45 is considered to be part of that payment.

Thanks,

CasinoReviews.com Complaints Team

Hello,
 
 First of all, I want to mention that my complaint is not only related to Maneki, but to several brands under the N1 Interactive License. Please let me know if I need to create additional complaints for each brand.
 
 The brands I have complaints against are the following: 
 Casinobuck
 EUslot
 Crazyfox
 Maneki
 Betamo
 Betchan
 Gslot
 N1 Casino
 
 Below is a summary of my case, I will of course elaborate with additional information, details and evidence in the next step:
 
 Summary
 I created an account on Maneki Casino in February 2020 and made several deposits. After experiencing a loss of control, I self-excluded myself permanently on 2020-02-20. Despite this, I was still allowed to both create accounts and make deposits on all of the aforementioned brands between the years 2020-2022 until I self-excluded myself permanently from each brand independently throughout these years.
 
 Now that I am gambling-free, I have finally got the energy to investigate if I ever was mistreated according to any responsible gambling regulations. 
 
 Although Maneki:s terms &amp; conditions have updated since early 2020, I have strong reasons to believe - and also have a distant memory - that their terms &amp; conditions at the time of my self-exclusion stipulated that any permanent self-exclusion would be applicable to all brands under the same license and not only the one where the self-exclusion was applied at. 
 
 From what I've understood, these were the terms &amp; conditions "WHAT IS SELF-EXCLUSION?
 
 Setting Self-exclusion lets us know that we need to take all measures to block your access to your account and make sure that you receive no promotional materials. You may also contact our support team and inform us about your decision to stop gambling at the Website for a certain period of time or forever. Self-exclusion means that you will be barred from play at all online casinos under the participating licence." 
 
 As I see it, the language here is very clear. I shouldn't have been allowed to open any other accounts under the N1 License. Due to this, I request to be compensated for the substantial losses I endured on the difference brands under the N1 Interactive License.
 
 The contested funds is an approximate number I have estimated after requesting DSAR:s from all of their different brands. I would have no issues if N1 Interactive Ltd / Maneki Casino would like to control this to determine the exact amount. I would also accept if my losses from Maneki Casino were subtracted from the total amount. 
 
 I have already raised this matter directly with Maneki Casino the past weeks. Although I have presented arguments and evidence, they have rejected all of my claims. I have seen similar cases on the Pogg being ruled in the players favour, so I would hereby request that you help me in this case.
 
 Please let me know what further information you need from me to resolve this as efficient and fairly possible.
 
 Reference case
 I think this case is very similar to my specific case, so perhaps there is information there that can support my claims. 
 https://thepogg.com/complaint/spinia-self-exclusion-2/
 Sincerely,

Maneki Casino - License wide self-exclusion wasn't applied - N1 Interactive

To submit an online gambling complaint, register a new account or log in.

Create account

Log in

Got a complaint about a gambling site?

Casino Review Site Logo

Log out

Account

Title

Complaint Details

Posted By

Disputed amount

Date raised

Date closed

Player’s Complaint

To protect the privacy of our users, all personally identifiable information has been redacted. If you see anything we've missed contact us at complaints@casinoreviews.com.

Player's Complaint

Player Complaint Responses

Complaint Title

This complaint may have been archived. If you are looking for information about your complaint, please contact us at complaints@casinoreviews.com