Provedení Pokerstars. Platba zjevně není dobrovolná (strana 93)

At which PF in Austria did you submit Curacao? I also have a few

Bei welchem PF in Österreich hast du Curacao eingereicht? Hab auch ein paar

Padronus but they only take the big casinos where they know they won't go bankrupt

Padronus aber die nehmen nur die großen casinos wo sie wissen die gehen nicht Konkurs

Did you say whether they will sue directly or are they just waiting to see what happens?

Haben Sie gesagt ob sie auch direkt klagen? oder warten die auch nur ab was passiert?

I think they are now taking action against the casinos because I had to sign the power of attorney and litigation funder contract

Ich denke das sie jetzt gegen die casinos vorgehen, weil ich musste die Vollmacht und prozessfinanzierer Vertrag unterzeichnen

Does anyone have experience with crypto casinos like Stake or Roobet? Losses over 30k+...

Hat jemand Erfahrung mit Crypto Casinos wie Stake oder Roobet? Verluste über 30k+...

For me it is about a crypto casino, you better contact them

Bei mir geht es um ein crypto casino melde dich lieber bein denen

who please ? I need help for cases in Curaçao; thanks

Tomorrow. But only applies to Austria!

Tom orrow. Gilt aber nur für Österreich!

So the provider who finances the process is called Tom Oarrow

Also der Anbieter der den Prozess finanziert heißt Tom Orrow

Hello, dear players!

while browsing Casino Guru News I literarily stumbled across an article titled "Austrian court orders player to reimburse an unlicensed gambling operator".

Do you know the ruling of the court? These articles are only available in English, so I was wondering if it would be okay if I posted the text here so that anyone can use the built-in auto translator.

This is an unexpected turn of events, in my opinion:

"The Austrian Supreme Court has come up with a surprise ruling that essentially allows an unnamed unlicensed gambling operator to seek and reclaim winnings paid out to an Austrian player in what must be one of the most peculiar such cases in Europe. There are a few caveats to observe, however, as reported by multiple industry sources.

Although similar cases have sprouted all over the place, with courts usually finding it appropriate for illegal operators to be on the hook and order them to repay winnings to players, the reverse has just happened in Austria.

Austrian courts side partially with unlicensed operator against player

The particular case covered by the Supreme Court concerns an unnamed operator that was based in Malta, offered gambling products to Austrian players, but did not have a license to do so.

A player who won €7,152.71 between May and July 2020 will now have to repay the operator, with the court acknowledging the operator’s complaint – that the market was illegal at the time when the player had gambled, and the winnings must be forfeited.

The player had deposited €22,000 and by July, they had amassed €29,100. Yet, the player will not be reimbursing the operator for the full €7,152.71 and will have to pay €626.60 to cover the operator’s legal fees instead.

The decision is surprising, not least because the operator in this case had acknowledged that it had operated without a license in the country, which makes it illegal.

This argument has held well in places such as the Netherlands, where before the new regulatory regime, unregulated operators were targeted with stiff penalties and the local regulator, the Kansspelautoriteit, has shown no relent in its pursuit of purported culprits.

But the Supreme Court has another goal in mind, as its decision seems to send a clear message to local players who may engage in offshore or unlicensed gambling, rather than sticking to the local monopoly.

Side with the player, and you invite the gambling addiction court to argue

In other words, the decision may serve as an example of what would happen to players personally if they were to engage in gambling that is not regulated by the country.

The court also explained that if players were the only ones asking back for their losses in the unregulated market, it would increase the risk of addiction as it would falsely instil the idea that gamblers can gamble without risk, and further argued that either of the two parties, that is to say, player or operator, can question the "contract," i.e. unregulated gambling, and seek their money back.

This is so because both parties had acted illegally, the court specified. The gambler has 14 days to comply with the order. Interestingly, in a previous case involving loot boxes, an Austrian court ordered Valve to repay €14,000 to a player who had spent the money on acquiring digital goods in Counter-Strike, a popular video game by the company."

(source: https://casino.guru/news/gambling-industry/austrian-court-orders-player-to-reimburse-an-unlicensed-gambling-operator--5608 )

Considering the primary subject matter of this thread, I believed you wished to talk about this relevant topic.

Hello!

I can understand this ruling completely, because it goes both ways. As soon as the losses are to be refunded, the illegal operator does not have to pay out any winnings, or can demand them back, but only the winnings that are higher than the deposits. Both have played illegally, so a player has no right to his winnings.

Hallo!

Dieses Urteil ist für mich völlig nachvollziehbar, denn es geht in beide Richtungen, sowie die Verluste zurück zu erstatten sind,muss der Illegale Betreiber keine Gewinne auszahlen,bzw. kann diese zurückfordern, wohlgemerkt,nur die Gewinne,die über den Einzahlungen liegen. Beide haben illegal gespielt,somit hat ein Spieler auch kein Recht,auf seine Gewinne.

In this case, only deposits were claimed without first deducting the withdrawals.

That's why I don't understand the outcry behind it - of course the casino will sue you back. There is a lot of media propaganda going on here - no normal person or PF only sues for deposits (without deducting the withdrawals first)

Bei diesem Fall wurden nur Einzahlungen geklagt, ohne davor die Auszahlungen abgezogen zu haben.

Deshalb verstehe ich den aufschrei dahinter nicht - natürlich klagt dich das Casino dann zurück. Hier wird viel Medienpropaganda betrieben - kein normaler Mensch bzw. PF klagt nur Einzahlungen (Ohne davor die Auszahlungen abzuziehen)

Hello!

In this case, it seems that the casino actually sued the player. The verdict was announced at the end of June.

I'm surprised that we haven't read anything about this yet. Perhaps the argument of the defendant's lawyer was not good, a ban on participation was never mentioned and this should really come into effect because the player was deliberately deceived, the legality of the game was suggested and the player could not have known that it was illegal. This ruling is definitely an isolated case and no reason to worry. The casinos will not come one after the other and sue for winnings that have been paid out.

https://ris.bka.gv.at/Document.wxe?Abfrage=Justiz&Fachgebiet=&Gericht=&Rechtssatznummer=&Rechtssatz=&Fundstelle=&Spruch=&Rechtsgebiet=Undefined&AenderungenSeit=Undefined&JustizVerscheidsart=&SucheNachRechtssatz=False&SucheNachText=True&GZ=8Ob21%2f24g&vonDatum=& ToDate=06.08.2024&Norm=&ImRisSeitFromDatum=&ImRisSeitBisDatum=&ImRisSeit=Undefined&ResultPageSize=100&Suchworte=&Position=1&SkipToDocumentPage=true&ResultFunctionToken=631abfc7-d87f-490f-8ffb-f7715b 21cbb5&Document number=JJT_20240626_OGH0002_0080OB00021_24G0000_000

Hallo!

in dem Fall war es offenbar wirklich so, dass das Casino den Spieler verklagt hat. Das Urteil wurde bereits Ende Juni verkündet.

Mich wundert es, dass davon noch nirgends zu lesen war. Ggf. war die Argumentation des Anwalts der Beklagten Partei nicht gut, es wurde nie eine Komdiltionssperre angesprochen und diese müsste eigentlich zum tragen kommen, da ja der Spieler bewusst getäuscht wurde, die Legalität des Spiels suggeriert wurde und der Spieler nicht wissen konnte dass es illegal ist. Dieses Urteil ist definitiv ein Einzelfall und kein Grund zur Sorge. Die Casinos werden nicht der Reihe nach antanzen und ausbezahlte Gewinne einklagen.

https://ris.bka.gv.at/Dokument.wxe?Abfrage=Justiz&Fachgebiet=&Gericht=&Rechtssatznummer=&Rechtssatz=&Fundstelle=&Spruch=&Rechtsgebiet=Undefined&AenderungenSeit=Undefined&JustizEntscheidungsart=&SucheNachRechtssatz=False&SucheNachText=True&GZ=8Ob21%2f24g&VonDatum=&BisDatum=06.08.2024&Norm=&ImRisSeitVonDatum=&ImRisSeitBisDatum=&ImRisSeit=Undefined&ResultPageSize=100&Suchworte=&Position=1&SkipToDocumentPage=true&ResultFunctionToken=631abfc7-d87f-490f-8ffb-f7715b21cbb5&Dokumentnummer=JJT_20240626_OGH0002_0080OB00021_24G0000_000

@Radka

The casino that sued the player is Bet365

Bet 365 has a rating of 8.9 on your website.

Bet365 offered illegal gambling, a player won and was then sued by Bet365. How can a rating of 8.9 be justified and what effect will this have on the rating? The casino is obviously dubious.

@Radka

Dae Casino das den Spieler geklagt hat ist. Bet365

Bet 365 hat auf eurer Website eine Bewertung von 8.9.

Bet365 hat illegal Glücksspiel angeboten, eine Spielerin hat gewonnen und wurde dann von Bet365 verklagt. Wie rechtfertig sich dann eine Bewertung von 8.9 bzw. welche Auswirkungen wird dies auf die Bewertung haben? Das Casino ist offensichtlich unseriös.

I figured out the same thing. As I saw in other comments on social media, "Two can play this game." 🙂. I'd say it fits.

I have a different opinion.

The casinos pretend to be legal, but then sue the player who won and claim that the offer was illegal. In return, however, they do not pay the judgments against them. Do you think that is fair, dear Radka? That is absolutely mafia-like behavior and absolutely dubious!

Ich bin da anderer Meinung.

Die Casinos gaukeln Legalität vor, klagen dann aber den Spieler der gewonnen hat und berufen sich auf die Illegalität des Angebots. Im Gegenzug zahlen sie aber die Urteile gegen sich nicht. Finden Sie das Fair, liebe Radka? Das ist absolut Mafiöses Verhalten und absolut unseriös!

Hi there.

Feel free to use the reply button, please.

I believe the explanation is that we concentrate on fairness rather than applying solely the legal aspect as attorneys. Actually, this is quite the part many people from heavily regulated countries dislike the most.

Have you ever heard about the Fair Safety Codex 👈? That's literally it.

Just imagine what you call illegal, we liken to sort of a restricted countries. Our point of view focuses on a fair chance to play and not being punished later.

"It is not acceptable to let players gamble if a casino knows that they are from a restricted country and if the casino plans to refer to the rule about restricted countries whenever a player requests their first withdrawal. This is completely against the rules of fair play, as the casino is knowingly letting a player wager money without a chance to actually win something in return.

Many casinos claim that this is difficult or impossible to implement into their systems, but it is simply about comparing the player's country of residence with the list of restricted or allowed countries; therefore, we do not consider it to be that difficult on a technological level."

Naturally, I am aware that attorneys would take a different tack. I believe that this is the difference.

There is only one horrendous difference, namely that the losses clearly outweigh the benefits and therefore more rulings are made in favor of players, but the casinos are now also considering paying out pure winnings after deducting the losses. Nevertheless, the casinos mostly have only themselves to blame. Since 2009, the first ruling by the European Court of Justice that their platforms are illegal without a license from the country and a consumer does not need to know, or in principle has to find out, whether the platform in question has a license from the respective country or just the EU license.

Es gibt nir einen horrenden Unterschied,das nämlich ,die Verluste deutlich überwiegen ubd deshalb mehr Urteile zu gunsten von Spielern gefällt werden, sich aber die Casinos wohl mittlerweile auch überlegen, reine Gewinne,nach Abzug der Verluste noch auszuzahlen. Trotzdem sind die Casinos ,meistens selber schuld gewesen. Seit 2009 ,erstes Urteil EuGH,das ihre Plattformen, ohne Lizenz, des Landes illegal sind ubd ein Verbraucher,nicht wissen muss,oder sich prinzipiell schlau machen muss,ob diejenige Plattform,eine Lizenz des jeweiligen Landes hat,oder halt nur die EU Lizens.

Dear player!

I brought this matter here so you have something to discuss related to the topic. I'm not here to explain the verdict or vote for any involved party because I'm not familiar enough with the case.

Also, I am a bit hesitant to act like a law expert because I'm not.

Feel free to express your opinion on that. Just don't expect some sort of judgement from me.

Some people feel provoked by this.

Manche fühlen sich davon provoziert.