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.
Unfortunately, I do not have access to the chat history, but I can assure you that my inquiry was not "very general". My concern was clearly articulated, and I even mentioned the possibility of closing my account immediately if playing from Portugal was not permitted.
I recall the operator stating that, according to their Terms of Service, Portugal was not on the list of prohibited countries. However, I explicitly requested and, frankly, demanded that they double-check this information. Hours later, I received the email confirming that I was allowed to play.
Therefore, the delay in their response was not due to a simple check of the Terms of Service. It was due to a more thorough investigation that, regrettably, resulted in incorrect information being provided to me. I was very specific and precise in my request, and their answer was wrong.
By clearly articulated, were you specifically mentioned that you got a conflicting information of gambling regulation in Portugal, that casinos will need some "extra" license than what they already have? Or were it something else?
I'll appreciate if you can be very specific on this as if you've specifically articulated your inquiry like above proposed, or similarly brushing and mentioning the elements, it'll move the tide of the narrative and I can ask the casino to give more than they're willing to [for the time being] propose as the middle ground.
Perhaps a screenshot of the transcript of the chat [though you've mentioned that it's inaccessible to you] if you can request the copy of it from their team?
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.
I understand the ToS clause about knowing applicable laws. However, the casino's direct confirmation that I could play from Portugal superseded that. I asked for clarification precisely because I was unsure. Their incorrect answer led directly to my actions. They are responsible for the information they provide.
Nope. Far as I know, the ToS that you agreed will supersedes the live chat's confirmation. Because, unless articulated perfectly before, with the knowledge that there is a regulation for a casino in your country, conflicted and ambiguous as it might be at the time, you know that there is a law. And the failure to perfectly articulate the reason of the inquiry, that create a situation where they confirm through support, is "leading" the counterparty.
After careful deliberation, and considering the complexities of this situation, I believe a fair resolution lies in a compromise. While I maintain that the casino's initial error on February 28th directly contributed to my subsequent financial losses, I am willing to meet them halfway.
For the nth time, the error is not on theirs, on February 28th, unless the above requested extra evidence can be provided, that you've inquire about Housebets legality, due to several conflicting information you earned regarding licensing from SRIJ.
Therefore, as a final and earnest request, I propose that the casino reimburse me for 50% of the total amount I deposited after February 28th. This represents a division of the losses, acknowledging both the casino's error and my own participation in the activities that followed. This 50% reimbursement represents my final and most reasonable offer. It's important to reiterate that this is not solely about recovering lost funds. It's about rectifying a situation that arose from the casino's provision of incorrect information. As previously stated, I would have received a significant sum in rakeback/bonuses, and I had open bets at the time of account limitation, further compounding the financial impact.
I understand that the casino might perceive this as a difficult request. However, I believe it is a reasonable and equitable solution. They possess the means to correct their error, and this compromise demonstrates my willingness to reach an amicable agreement. I urge you, Holydarkness, to advocate for this proposal. I am confident that it represents a fair outcome, and I await the casino's response with anticipation. I believe this is a final request, and hope that this will be the end of this situation.
I'll relay to them. But with current narrative, I can understand that they will refuse this, point blank.