Dream Vegas - Wrongly Confiscated Withdrawal

Hi cmanlaffz - welcome to ThePOGG.com.

Please ensure you have read our Complaint Guidance to ensure that fully understand how our complaint management process functions.

As we are the ADR for the White Hat Gaming 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).

https://thepogg.com/terms-of-use-for-dispute-resolution-service/

– 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. Bonus Buy features are simply placing a single large bet on the outcome of the bonus feature. There is no ambiguety in this matter. The entire stake is risked on the outcome of the bonus feature.

The maximum bet term in this instance is not in any way vague, you simply have not adhered to it. The practices of other operators are non-relevant to your claim. The reality here is that no regulatory agency that we are aware of currently places the onus on the operator to prevent players from exceeding the maximum bet limit that they agreed to when accepting the bonus. The player is expected to abide by these restrictions.

Neither is whether you feel that the number of spins required to complete the wagering requirements for any given size of bonus relevant. Each player has make their own determination about whether they feel the terms associated with any given promotion make the promotion attractive. You are certainly within your rights to not engage with this type of promotion if you do not feel the terms give you fair chance of winning, but this hypothetical player has no bearing on your claim, which is simply a question of whether or not you adhered to the maximum allowed bet term for the bonus you accepted.

I'm sorry we could not be of more help.

ThePOGG

This logic just doesn't simply hold up and before you make a ruling I would like the opportunity to send screen shots like you allow others.

1 Example of how this makes no sense:

Rule you are referring to in Canada for Dream Vegas: The maximum bet allowed whilst the welcome bonus is in play is $5. Should you bet higher than this while the welcome bonus is in play, we reserve the right to confiscate all winnings.

Rule in UK for Dream Vegas: Full T&Cs apply. 18+. New players only. One offer per player. Max bonus bet

£5. Offer: 100% bonus match on 1st deposit + bonus spins. Value of bonus & number of spins depend on deposit amount: £20-£100 max £100 bonus + 50

spins on selected games; £101-£200: max £200 bonus + 100 spins on selected games; or £200+: max £300 bonus + 150 spins on eligible NetEnt Games. Winnings from spins credited as bonus and capped at £100. Bonus

funds are separate to cash funds & subject to wagering requirement (35x deposit + bonus). Only bonus funds contribute to wagering requirement. Bonus funds expire within 30 days; bonus spins within 72hrs. Affordability checks apply. Terms Apply. Please gamble responsibly. BeGambleAware.org

So here's my question. UK residents ARE NOT ALLOWED TO PURCHASE BONUS BUYS and to be compliant, Dream Vegas has banned them from accessing this feature. Why don't we have this feature banned in Canada while the first deposit bonus is active and way more importantly... why in the UK terms and conditions do they MENTION BONUS BET. THEY LITERALLY USE THE WORDS TOGETHER. Why in Canada did they remove the very important word "bonus" that no longer has ties with bet.

I have screenshot evidence of their TOCs for the UK... why are they being sneaky for users in Canada.

I also have another example and live chat convo with a CSR from Dream Vegas. They allegedly removed the ability for users to buy bonus buys during the first deposit bonus years ago... why wasn't this change reflected in the TOCs.

I read a previous case with a customer and the POGG where the concern was no bets can exceed $5. And your only concern was the user playing a spin more than $5 - not if they bough a bonus buy.

Why wasn't this changed in their TOCs if they implemented this rule. The wording of the contract would need to change as well as again no bet over $5 and NO BONUS BUYS ARE 2 DIFFERENT RULES.

Please allow me the chance at screenshots before ruling this out and please reach out to Dream Vegas for a potential settlement.

You guys also didnt let me post my full message and I did not see character limits.

Hi cmanlaffz,

There is no character limit. If the rest of your message has not come through it is because you have used a prohibited character, which is detailed on the submission page.

With regard to different requirements in different jurisdictions - this has no bearing on your case. Different regulators place different requirements. Only the requirements for the license relevant to your play has any bearing on your claim.

Further to this - the UK does not prohibit Bonus Buy features for bonus play. It prohibits Bonus Buy features altogether. No operator is allowed to offer this type of in game feature to UK players.

Even more relevant, if you want to discuss the UK terms and conditions, the "bonus bet" referenced in the terms is not in fact anything related to Bonus Buy features. It in fact relates to the UK regulator's requirement that only wagers with bonus funds can be subjected to bonus restrictions. So all bets as far any bonus is concerned is a "bonus bet" as it comprised of bonus funds and this term does exactly the same in terms of consequence to players as the Canadian term.

I am sorry you are unhappy, but there is no grounds for us to seek a "settlement" with Dream Vegas in this case. This is a very simple situation. You accepted a bonus with a maximum allowed be of $5. You placed wagers of greater than $5. As such the bonus contract is rightly considered void.

ThePOGG

And that's exactly what I said about the UK prohibiting bonus buys altogether.

And my mentioning of their rules and our rules in Canada is totally relevant. Dream Vegas purposely removed the word bonus to make it more ambiguous and to catch us on invisible trap wire.

You also never mentioned the other case that I was alluding to before Dream Vegas decided to disallow Canadians to purchase bonus buys.

So I will copy the convo here without mentioning the case or the username of the other customer:

Questions the POGG posed that had NOTHING TO DO WITH BONUS BUYS because they I guess were allowed at the time.

-It seems likely that the issue relates to you claiming a bonus and betting more than $5 NZD on a single spin before you had completed the wagering requirements. Is that correct?

-I need you to answer the question - did you bet more than $5 NZD on a single spin?

-But that does not change the fact that bonus terms clearly prohibit you from placing bets larger than $5NZD on a single round of play.

You even said ON A SINGLE ROUND OF PLAY. Weird you mention this because a bonus buy is NOT A SINGLE ROUND OF PLAY. So your worry at the time was about a single round exceeding $5. This is one rule and Dream Vegas has added another rule about no bonus buys being allowed.

So now I ask you, where in Dream Vegas's Terms and Conditions did they identify this change in added verbiage. When did they make this rule change and why wasn't it documented.

I think the POGG needs a department or a third party group to help investigate unfair/unclear wording in contracts, misleading and unfair terms that aren't exclusively specified and to do due diligence on casinos having the same cases over and over again. I had CSR's at Dream Vegas unsure of their own rules regarding deposit bonus and bonus buys.

Why also haven't you still given me the chance to send screenshots or anything?

Dream Vegas has a 1.8 stars on Trust Pilot... I think that speaks volumes and it doesn't seem you are willing to help the problem.

I think there is more you can do here

Hi cmanlaffz,

Trustpilot - effectively every gambling operator has a terrible score on Trustpilot. It is normal for players who lose to be unhappy. And there are far more losing players than winning players.

With regard to "investigat[ing]... casinos having the same cases over and over again", we make recommendations to the regulator every year regarding systematic changes that we feel would improve the gambling sector. In this case we have recommended that ALL max bet terms be automatically enforced for several years running. The regulator has not acted on this advice.

A Bonus Buy feature is a single bet and a single round of play. It cannot be split up into smaller pieces. The entire bet is risked on the outcome of the bonus feature.

Feel free to forward whatever screenshots you feel are relevant to [email protected], but I can effectively tell you as a certainty at this juncture that they will make no practical difference to the outcome of your case. This is a matter that we have seen repeatedly previously, it is not a unique or complex case. You are free to disagree with our ruling and you retain your right to pursue the matter via the relevant court systems if you feel that is the appropriate course of action.

Our ruling stands on this matter. I'm sorry you are unhappy but there is nothing further we can do to assist you.

ThePOGG

You are very incorrect about all gambling operators having a terrible score on Trustpilot. You guys do have a 2.4 which is not great either though.

Interesting, if you've recommended it I guess you see there is a clear issue. This is good to note and evidence I will further use. Who is the regulator funded by... the casinos themselves? This whole industry is just flat out corrupt so I'm thankful we now have legal entities operating in North America because I will never ever use offshore casinos again.

And again, I flat out disagree and you are incorrect in saying you see this case repeatedly but its not a complex case... how does that make any sense? If it causes a lot of confusion and you see this happen often, then clearly it is a complex case... you and the regulators just fail to do anything and fail to hold casinos accountable. Sad in reality.

Clearly there is confusion and disconnect here. I have failed to see anyone who has submitted a claim against Dream Vegas (since their rule change you still haven't addressed) to have spun for more than $5. We all have gotten in invisible trouble for doing bonus buys, which again is absolutely not stated in the terms and conditions.

On sweet bonanza for example - I either “buy feature” for whatever amount or I bet/spin (double chance to win feature)” for whatever amount.

A bonus buy is just simply not a bet and you haven't provided any evidence at all suggesting it is.

I’m not betting on a bonus, a bonus is a mutually agreed upon purchase and transaction between the provider and the user. A bet is the risk I take per spin to either have a base game or to get into the bonus… it’s that simple.

Hi cmanlaffz,

Mathematically 'Bonus Buys' are no different than any other bet. Just like any other bet, you pay the bet for a chance of winning. Whether the button says 'bet' or 'buy' you know that the consequence is identical. You have paid X for a chance of winning Y.

As to Trustpilot - a little thought will quickly lead you to see the problem with having 'user reviews' of any dispute resolution service. As rulings should, if the service is balanced, result in around 50% of claims being upheld, half of all users will walk away unhappy.

I'm sorry you feel that way regarding your experience here. You are entirely entitled to be unhappy with the outcome of your claim, but that will not change the outcome. All we can recommend is that you adhere more carefully to the rules in future.

ThePOGG

Also when you say this - "A Bonus Buy feature is a single bet and a single round of play. It cannot be split up into smaller pieces. The entire bet is risked on the outcome of the bonus feature."

How can you call 10 spins or 15 spins "a single round of play." A single round of play is a single bet. Wording is incredibly important and thus why you have encouraged the change 'ALL max bet terms be automatically enforced' because you do see the glaring issue. Why on almost every slot does it call bonus buys a buy or a purchase and spins a bet. Why don't they call spins a purchase if your logic was to be reversed.

The words are different and have different meaning. And you essentially are proving my point and all existing complaints on this matter by advocating word changes to the regulator to put into effect.

It's mind blowing

"Whether the button says 'bet' or 'buy' you know that the consequence is identical. You have paid X for a chance of winning Y."

These are two different words. Are bet and buy synonyms? Last time I checked they are not. The whole point of a valid contract is to articulate the exact clauses not hide out on wording that you will use to the other parties detriment later on.

You still have yet to provide a specific example of how a bet or a bonus buy are one in the same.

You also never addressed this at all -

Questions the POGG posed that had NOTHING TO DO WITH BONUS BUYS because they I guess were allowed at the time.

-It seems likely that the issue relates to you claiming a bonus and betting more than $5 NZD on a single spin before you had completed the wagering requirements. Is that correct?

-I need you to answer the question - did you bet more than $5 NZD on a single spin?

-But that does not change the fact that bonus terms clearly prohibit you from placing bets larger than $5NZD on a single round of play.

You even said ON A SINGLE ROUND OF PLAY. Weird you mention this because a bonus buy is NOT A SINGLE ROUND OF PLAY. So your worry at the time was about a single round exceeding $5. This is one rule and Dream Vegas has added another rule about no bonus buys being allowed.

So now I ask you, where in Dream Vegas's Terms and Conditions did they identify this change in added verbiage. When did they make this rule change and why wasn't it documented.

Hi cmanlaffz,

There is no example to provide because they are EXACTLY the same. You take risk X to have a chance of receiving Y. I'm sorry you disagree with that but there is nothing further that could be said that would make this dynamic any clearer to you. You have a clear incentive to view the situation from a perspective that supports your claim.

We have advised the regulator to require all max bet terms to be enforced automatically because it would improve consumer experience generally, Until such time as the regulator acts on that advice we have no authority to require operators to enforce the term.

There is no further benefit to further discourse on this matter as it is clear that you are not willing to accept our professional opinion. Again that is within your rights, but at this juncture it is no longer a useful exercise to engage further discourse on this matter. We have directed you to your next course of action if you wish to take this complaint further. Beyond that there is nothing further that we can do to assist you and no further posts will be approved on this thread.

ThePOGG

"Professional opinion"

Where did you direct me to engage further discourse, what resources have you provided?

Hi cmanlaffz,

Final response.

The complaint your reference was from 2019. You were playing a welcome bonus. The terms could have been changed at any point between. But they weren't. a) we did not quote a term, but paraphrased and b) a Bonus Buy feature is a single round of play. You are free to disagree with that, but that is the position we hold.

And as already directed - if you are unhappy with the outcome of your submission you are free to pursue your claim via the relevant court systems. We are not in a position to provide you guidance on how to go about this. You would need to take independent legal advice.

ThePOGG

You looped single spin and single round together those are both very different. Also very interesting to note that the terms and conditions COULD have changed but they WEREN'T. Meaning, Dream Vegas disallowed users the privilege to buy bonus buys during an active welcome bonus yet NEVER INDICATED THIS CHANGE TO ITS PLAYER BASE IN THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS. Very very interesting.

All in all good evidence provided. Thank you for the "help" and I hope you guys can accomplish a little bit more for your player base down the road.

Hi cmanlaffz,

You're correct - that was a mis-statement. We couldn't state with certainty that the term was or was not changed without further investigation. It was simply irrelevant. At no point has this operator allowed Bonus Buy features to be used. These features - like every other bet - are covered by the maximum bet term that currently exists and as - to our knowledge - this license has never has an exclusion within this term allowing players to engage with Bonus Buy features despite the clear exclusion - there was no point in history where this type of bet has been allowed.

And as was pointed out above - you were playing a welcome bonus. Even if the terms had been changed, you would not be aware of any actions the operator had taken to alert players of any changes as you have presumably only recently signed-up.

The representation that the operator has engaged in some form of deception to sneak this rule in is at this point willfully misrepresentative. You are looking to interpret what we have stated in a case from 3 years ago as a direct quote from terms, when at no point did we indicate that it was a direct quote, and use this to suggest that the operator has changed their terms in a way that would have bearing on your case, without informing you, despite presenting no evidence that the terms have changed in any way since the point of your registration. The reality is that you simply want to interpret the term to mean "max bet $5, except when you are betting on a Bonus Buy feature" when no exclusion exists or every has within the terms.

Case closed.

ThePOGG

I'm not saying they snuck this in I was questioning where it was put in the Terms and Conditions. I also have a chat transcript where a CSR did say they allowed bonus buys at a certain point but they changed this rule years ago.

Happy to send this over but you keep saying final response and case closed as you are in a rush to get out of this conversation. I do appreciate you admitting you made a mis-statement. A true step in the right direction

Hi cmanlaffz,

And the terms that were present previous to your accepting the bonus are not relevant to your claim, even if the Live Chat agent is correct in the information that they gave out. The terms as currently exist are the only relevant terms and they adequately cover non-payment in this case.

ThePOGG

I was going to type out something further but we can agree to disagree. Thank you for the replies and the help