holydarkness, while I appreciate your attempt to provide a balanced perspective, I strongly disagree with your assessment of where the fault lies in this situation. You're putting a lot of emphasis on my supposed failure to "perfectly articulate" my inquiry, and I find that to be an unreasonable and frankly, unfair burden to place on me.

Let's be clear: I raised concerns about the legality of the casino's operation in Portugal. The fact that I might not have used the *exact* legal jargon you deem necessary shouldn't absolve the casino of their responsibility to provide accurate and consistent information. It's their business to know and adhere to the regulations, and it's their responsibility to communicate clearly with their customers.

You're suggesting that I was somehow "leading" the counterparty by asking about the legality of their operations. That's a mischaracterization of my inquiries. I was seeking clarification on a crucial issue that directly impacts my ability to use their services. To imply that *I'm* at fault for their conflicting and inadequate responses is simply wrong.

Furthermore, your reliance on the Terms of Service to supersede any information provided by live chat is a convenient excuse. Customers rely on the information provided by support staff, and conflicting information from those sources erodes trust. In fact, I'd like to dispute the claim that the Terms of Service automatically override any confirmations from Housebets' live chat support. While I acknowledge the Terms as a binding agreement, the live chat confirmation should be given appropriate weight, based on the following points within the document:

• Housebets's Authority and Dispute Resolution: Clause 2.3 states that "Housebets retains authority over the issuing, maintaining, and closing the Service." While this clause establishes Housebets's authority, it also implies a responsibility to exercise that authority fairly and reasonably. Denying the validity of a direct confirmation from a support agent, acting on behalf of Housebets, could be interpreted as an unreasonable use of this authority. Furthermore, Clause 2.4 states "The decision of Housebets management concerning any use of this Service and dispute resolution is final and will not be open to review or appeal.” I believe that my dispute should be reviewed, and I urge Housebets to exercise its authority in a just manner.
• Errors and Incompleteness: Clause 4.4 addresses errors related to wagers and payments, stating that Housebets has the right to cancel bets accepted in error. Clause 4.5 further elaborates on errors or malfunctions in the software, requiring the user to report them and stating that Housebets has a right to compensation for costs related to the error or incompleteness and failed notification by the User. By analogy, miscommunication or inaccurate information provided by a Housebets representative can be considered a form of error or incompleteness. I argue that Housebets is responsible for ensuring the accuracy of information provided through its official support channels and should bear the responsibility for any consequences resulting from such errors.
• User Obligations and Information Accuracy: Clause 4.1.4 states that the user is responsible for providing accurate information to Housebets. By extension, it is reasonable to expect Housebets to also provide accurate information through its support channels. I fulfilled my obligation to seek clarification, and the information provided by Housebets's representative should be considered reliable.

To address your specific points:

• It's not my responsibility to have a law degree to ask a simple question about a casino's legality.
• The casino has a responsibility to provide clear and consistent information about their legal standing.
• The inconsistencies and contradictions in their responses are the primary source of this problem, not my phrasing of the questions.

In conclusion, while I acknowledge the importance of the Terms of Service, I believe that the live chat confirmation established a specific understanding. Disregarding this confirmation contradicts the principles of fair dispute resolution, responsibility for errors, and the expectation of accurate information from Housebets, all of which are implied within the Terms and Conditions. Instead of defending the casino's position, perhaps a more constructive approach would be to acknowledge their role in this mess and push for a fair resolution based on the information *they* provided, however flawed it may have been.