Hello @holydarkness, thank you once again for your response. However, I must disagree with a few points:
- Regarding the immediate response on February 28th: You mentioned that the initial response was a quick check of the Terms of Service by live support. However, my experience was different. While there was an initial chat response, they indicated they would investigate further and provide a more comprehensive answer, which I received later via email. Therefore, it wasn't a simple, immediate response.
- Regarding the email sender: You stated that legal or compliance emails would have a specific sender address. However, the email I received on March 8th, informing me of my account limitations, came from the same address and signature as the previous communication. This contradicts the idea that only general support uses that address.
Understand the situation better now?
Yes, thanks
The last "proposal" and explanationthey gave was that the account was indeed at 0 balance. However you're credited with 28 USD [if I remember the number correctly, from the top of my head] as a bonus, of which they're entitled to void them. Their "final position" was to not voiding that fund and let it withdrawable.
No, the bonuses were about 780€ considering the losses on previous week and their rakeback system and that was never credited. My balance is balance I still had before my account was "restricted".
The information being disseminated affect literally zero aspect of my life, I literally couldn't care less. I am here only to see the case get to its end. If that is the end of this case, then... *shrug*
I didnt intend to "threat" you or wtv, maybe it was bad translation. I know your position here and I can only thanks for your help and step in, so please dont read that as something against you - this is not my intention at all.
While I appreciate your perspective, I must respectfully disagree with your assessment of my actions.
- Regarding my knowledge of Portuguese regulations: You suggest I failed to understand my country's rules and/or failed to inform the support team. However, my initial inquiry stemmed precisely from the ambiguity and conflicting information surrounding online gambling regulations in Portugal. It was not a matter of ignorance, but rather a prudent attempt to clarify a complex legal landscape. The analogy of traveling to Australia without a visa is inaccurate; it's more akin to asking if a visa is needed when there are conflicting reports about visa requirements.
- Regarding the communication on February 28th: You propose that mentioning the specific Portuguese regulations might have led to a different outcome. However, I did express my uncertainty about the legal situation. The support team's role is to provide accurate information, and their assurance, even if based on a limited understanding of local laws, carries weight. Furthermore, expecting a customer to provide detailed legal expertise in a specific jurisdiction is unreasonable.
- Regarding the "uncoordinated" narrative: You label my actions as "uncoordinated" due to my initial inquiry and my email to SRIJ. However, seeking clarification from multiple sources is a responsible approach, not a sign of disorganization. Waiting for SRIJ's response would have been ideal, but the casino's confirmation led me to believe I was acting within their terms of service. Regarding your assessment that I was 'uncoordinated,' I must respectfully disagree. My question to the casino was direct and straightforward. I inquired about the legality of playing from Portugal on Housebets, stating my suspicion that it might not be permissible. I specifically asked if I was mistaken, and if so, requested immediate closure of my account. As you can see from their email response on February 28th, they even acknowledged this, stating, 'however, if you wish, we can close your account.' This indicates a clear and specific inquiry on my part.
- Regarding the ToS: You say that the casino acted in accordance to their ToS, but if that was true, why did they limit my account after i played? The information that they gave me, was that i could play.
In conclusion, while I acknowledge the complexity of the situation, I believe the primary responsibility for providing accurate and legally sound information lies with the casino. Their initial confirmation, regardless of its origin, led me to believe I was operating within permissible boundaries. Therefore, I maintain that I acted reasonably and diligently in seeking clarification.
Additionally, if it's not too much to ask, I would greatly appreciate one final clarification from Housebets. Could you please inquire as to why I received conflicting information via email (from the same sender address and signature) on February 28th and March 8th? Specifically, I'd like to understand why the February 28th email incorrectly stated I could play, while the March 8th email correctly stated my account was limited, given that both emails originated from the same source.
I kindly request that, in your capacity as an intermediary, you urge Housebets to reconsider their error of February 28th. Please emphasize to them the need to acknowledge responsibility for the incorrect information provided and to reverse the subsequent activities on my account.
You are correct that waiting for the SRIJ's response would have prevented this situation. However, that is precisely the 'restore point' I am requesting. I understand I cannot rewind time, but the casino has the capability to reverse these actions. That is my sole request: a reversal of the transactions that occurred after they provided me with incorrect information.
As previously mentioned, this is not merely about the $28, but rather the $7,707.55 I deposited in error, and the fines I will face from the Portuguese authorities. It is crucial that Housebets addresses the inconsistency of blocking deposits from a source one day and accepting them the next.
I appreciate your assistance in relaying this message and advocating for a fair resolution.
Regarding email sender and immediate response, I once again apparently have to stand partially corrected. They apparently a casino who use a shared email address. Regardless, one thing that I am very much certain: the scope of your inquiry made in 28th were only circulated to the support team and didn't managed to reach legal department.
Why? Because you ask something that's very general. You're not specifically asking them the why you asked. The delay in their response and why they addressed the inquiry through email, if I may guess, is because they check their ToS, to be sure. And while we're at it, the airport analogy is actually spot on. I'll admit I make it on the second, by the second, but not without a thorough thinking. On the second I typed it, and by the second it goes typed, the analogy came fresh from the oven of the backburner of my mind.
You asked a generic airport staff if you're allowed to fly to Australia from Portugal [whether it is allowed to play on housebets from Portugal] and the staff, who are not possessing specific knowledge of immigration requirement of Australia, checked the basic needs to fly like passport, ticket, etc. and write in a piece of paper that you're allowed to fly to Australia [them needing some time to check their ToS and return with email that it is okay]. Later on, when you on the
boarding gate [wait, I'll revise that, it's the check-in counter, so it'll be the check-in staff that you're consulting about your visa situation, not a gate staff] check-in counter, you said that you don't have visa and [I'll add] according to ChatGPT that you asked while you're in check-in line, you need visa [the SRIJ and your email by 8th].
And now here we are, at the check-in counter, you're asking for a refund of your ticket or some sort of compensation because the staff you asked earlier said you're good to fly to Australia from Portugal.
But hey, you're not wrong with the added aspect to the analogy there. "
it's more akin to asking if a visa is needed when there are conflicting reports about visa requirements." yes, that's the situation I actually propose. Suppose you asked the airport staff you meet earlier if you need visa to travel to Australia because you read somewhere that you don't need while on other sites said you need visa [mentioning to the live support that you have a conflicting info about Portuguese govt. regulation regarding licensing], that staff will check and communicate with their colleague who knows better about the visa regulation. The question is: did you?
About perceiving as threat, nope. Rest assured that I didn't see it as a threat directed at me at any degree. I am confident I understand your intention correctly. Those comment I made is simply to give you a better picture how big the care I give about your plan and/or the impact it will bring to Housebets, so feel free to do what you deemed needed to be done.
About player's duty to know the applicable law in the jurisdiction where they reside, why is it unreasonable? This case shows otherwise, as I managed to
get myself a crash course of Portuguese law for casinos. In fact, only seconds are needed if you ask ChatGPT [which, IIRC, you
do use them to help you compose your post]. Do you need me to show you what ChatGPT said when I typed a simple command of "can I play on online casino as portuguese"?
And further, yet bear a significant weight, regardless your capability to think to ask ChatGPT that while you use GPT to help you with this, you agreed to the clause 2.1.1. of their ToS, that shared by many casinos [though certainly on a different numbering and sequence]: that it is in your duty to know the applicable law.
About your question that is if not too much to ask, sadly it
is. I've explained at least three times and I've made it clear on above post that it'll be the last time I'll explain it to you. Your refusal to acknowledge [it has to be a refusal to acknowledge it, because otherwise, I can't fathom how could you keep asking although I've made it abundantly clear] it directly translates to the uselessness of me repeating the explanation about the situation of 28th and 8th, to the infinite amount. Words spoken to deaf ear.
About a reconsidering of an error, will you still ask them to reconsider the error suppose you didn't burn all of your deposits to zero? Will
you acknowledge responsibility for the incorrect information given that'll result in the reversal of the activities on your account that lead to the voiding of your winnings?
About restore point and incorrect information, I believe my explanation above, especially about "did you [ask]?" and the use of ChatGPT [other than to help you compose a rebuttal] covers enough that can help you get an answer for this point and that request.
And last, advocating for a fair resolution, I'll ask them again what number they're willing to give to meet you in the middle and kindly ask them to probably raise a tad bit more than what they initially offer: 28 USD. But I can't guarantee a yes. Why? Because broken down to the very root of this case, you put yourself in this situation by knowing [albeit ambiguous and conflicting] that you're not allowed to play, yet you still play, which made you broke the ToS you agreed. And now, you're asking the casino to... what, exactly and all-honestly?