ThePOGG.com – your source for reliable information about online gambling.


  • Over 2k complaints managed and $2 million returned to players.
  • The largest collection of detailed casino reviews available online.
  • Bonus value reports to tell you how bonuses really compare.
  • Detailed game guides to help you learn to play.

I certify that I am over 18 years of age and I have read and agreed to the:

We respect your privacy and won't share your email address.
Aweber logo
[X] Close this form and return to site
Close geo
Turn geolocation on
Locale settings

Currently viewing:

English in United States

Betamo - Confiscated winnings 29889,40 EUR

Ruling

Found for the Casino - Where a game is "excluded" in bonus terms, this very obviously does not mean you can play the game without being subject to bonus restrictions.

Read our Betamo Casino Review.

Player's Complaint

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am writing to you, to file a complaint regarding Betamo.com operated by N1 Interactive Ltd under the following licence: MGA/B2C/394/2017.

On Friday 12 March 2021, I had a Weekly Friday Reload Bonus and deposited EUR 2,000.00.Please note that according to Article 1d. of Betamo’s Terms and Conditions of Playing with Bonuses the limit of maximum EUR 10,000.00 of winnings that can be paid out does not apply to the weekly bonuses. Eventually, I won EUR 31,889.40 by playing live roulette with a live dealer. However, when I was trying to withdraw my funds, I received a message from Casino Support Team saying that all my funds had been confiscated since allegedly I had breached Betamo’s Terms and Conditions.

In particular, they stated that I had breached Article 1b. of General Terms and Conditions of Playing with Bonuses by using Weekly Friday Reload Bonus and making bets of more than EUR 5.00, while the before-mentioned bonus had been still active. As a result, they merely refunded my deposit of EUR 2,000.00.

Although pursuant to Article 1b. of the above-mentioned Terms, the maximum bet with an active bonus is EUR 5.00, Article 8c. of the same Terms explicitly states that all games with a live dealer are excluded from the bonus promotion. Therefore, the betting limit while the bonus is active is not applicable to the games with live dealer including live roulette which I played. Consequently, I have not breached Betamo’s Terms and Conditions as they suggested. As an evidence, I can also provide you with my Betting History supplied to me by the Casino Support Team, where one can notice that, while the bonus was active, I have made bets higher than EUR 5.00 only for the games with live dealer.

I contacted Casino Support Team and explained to them that indeed I have not breached any of their Terms and Conditions and referred to Article 8c.; however, they provided their explanation and interpretation of such Article by stating the following:

Recently provided rule regarding that Live Dealer games doesn´t apply to the bonus promotions, means that Live Dealer tables don´t apply to the wagering process as 0% of the bet amount is added to the wagering progress.

By using bonus money in Live Dealer games is an advantage in order to increase the received bonus money and complete the wager. However, these bets applied to the bonus procedure as bets using the bonus money that needs to be wagered first before the withdrawal.

And on top of that, they kept repeating that since the decision had been made by the management of Betamo, it was not subject to further considerations.

It has to be considered that such explanation is not provided in their Terms and Conditions or anywhere on their website; thus, it is undoubtedly misleading and unfair in relation to the player. In accordance with, Article 10(2) of the Gaming Player Protection Regulations (S.L.583.08 of laws of Malta), in a situation where any provision of Terms and Conditions is ambivalent or if any reasonable doubt arises as to the meaning of such provision, the interpretation most favourable to the player shall prevail. As a result, their interpretation of the Article 8c. of the Terms and Conditions shall in no case be valid and accepted in my case.

In conclusion, based on the above, the Betamo’s management clearly violated the provisions of the Gaming Player Protection Regulations and unreasonably confiscated my winnings by shifting blame and responsibility for such act on me. Hence, the Betamo’s management shall refund all such winnings that I have legally made, amounting to EUR 31,889.40 less the EUR 2,000.00 deposit which has been already refunded.

Should you require any clarifications or any documentation proving my arguments, I remain at your disposal.

I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Kind regards,

Read the casino review

3 Responses

User icon
ThePOGG
March 27, 2021

Hi skyper92 - welcome to ThePOGG.com!

Please ensure you have read our Complaint Guidance to ensure that fully you 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.

If you have any questions about the above, let me know.

Sadly there is nothing we can do to assist you in this matter. The term 'excluded from the bonus' with reference to a specific game could be reasonably considered to mean that either a) you are not allowed to play this game while you have a bonus (which would place you in breach of this term) or b) that the game does not count toward the wagering requirements for the bonus. Arguing that this restriction should mean that 'there are no restrictions on this game and no bonus terms apply while playing with a bonus on this game' stretches the plausible interpretation of this term beyond that which could reasonably be accepted.

Where a game is 'excluded' from a bonus the common parlance of the word would clearly imply that there are additional restraints on the use of this game with a bonus, not lesser restrictions as you are arguing.

Sorry we cannot be of further help.

ThePOGG

User icon
Skyper92
March 29, 2021

Dear Sir, Madam, Many thanks for the quick reply. As per my complaint I tried to make it very clear that from my perception and understanding Live Table Games are per definition and per BetAmo´s bonus terms excluded from the bonus promotion and therefor excluded from the 5,-EUR maximum bet rule. Let it be known, I have not made a single bet higher than 5,-EUR other than on games with a live dealer which clearly substantiates my perception of BetAmo´s bonus terms and conditions. Also, the majority of my winnings have been made while the bonus was not active anymore which will show from my betting history. I would have never made this transactional decision if my perception of the terms would have been otherwise. As per the Player Protection Directive published by the MGA under which N1 interactive limited is licensed we can conclude: ´B2C licensees shall ensure that none of the terms on which they offer their gaming service, including in relation to any promotional schemes, are unfair in terms of the Consumer Affairs Act.´ The Consumer Affairs Act on its turn clearly defines: ´51C.A commercial practice shall be regarded as misleading if:(a) it contains false information; or(b) in any way, including its overall presentation, deceives or is likely to deceive the average consumer, even if the information is factually correct, in relation to one or more of the following elements, and in either case causes or is likely to cause him to take a transactional decision that he would not have taken otherwise´ Kindly appreciate that your determination as an approved ADR has to be made on the basis of the applicable laws in Malta and not solely based on what is written in the terms and conditions of the operator. Also, please take note of my initial complaint in which I have been very clear about the following: ‘It has to be considered that such explanation is not provided in their Terms and Conditions or anywhere on their website; thus, it is undoubtedly misleading and unfair in relation to the player. In accordance with, Article 10(2) of the Gaming Player Protection Regulations (S.L.583.08 of laws of Malta), in a situation where any provision of Terms and Conditions is ambivalent or if any reasonable doubt arises as to the meaning of such provision, the interpretation most favorable to the player shall prevail. As a result, their interpretation of the Article 8c. of the Terms and Conditions shall in no case be valid and accepted in my case.’ Although I appreciate your efforts and the time you have taken to review my complaint, I must conclude that your view is simply adhering to the interpretation given by N1 which involves quite weak arguments that are not factual but merely based on the operator’s own perception of its bonus terms. Based on all the above I kindly ask you to reconsider your initial reply. If your determination does not take into consideration the Player Protection Directive published by the MGA and other laws applicable in Malta, I will have no other option but report the entire correspondence to the MGA which in turn, will presumably investigate the process adopted by your approved ADR solution to determine such cases. Should you require any clarifications or any documentation proving my arguments, I remain at your disposal. Yours Faithfully, [EDIT]

User icon
ThePOGG
April 4, 2021

Hi Skyper92, For your information - you do not have a valid claim so N1 Interactive have not been contacted nor have they provided an "interpretation" for us to "adher[e] to". And in fact, this specific operator - Betamo - holds blacklisted status with this service. The suggestion of bias in the operator's favour is undermined by these principal facts. Please feel free to advance your complaint in any manner you feel is appropriate. We will be happy to discuss the matter further with the regulator if the regulator feels further discourse is appropriate. Reasonable consideration was given to both the Player Protection Directive and the Commercial Communications Guidelines before our initial response was offered. The interpretation that you are looking to take of the terms is both illogical and unreasonable in our opinion and does not meet the standards required to support your claim. As previously directed, you played an "excluded" game. That does not under reasonable interpretation mean that you are not subject to bonus restrictions while engaging with this game. In fact, logically it suggests you should not be using bonus funds on this game at all. Sorry we cannot be of further assistance. ThePOGG

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Agreement

Skyper92 consented for ThePOGG to act on their behalf and share the personal information that they provide to ThePOGG with the following agencies for the purposes of resolving their complaint:

  • BetAmo
  • Malta Gaming Authority
  • N1 Interactive Ltd

March 27, 2021

United States country flag