Dunder - ignoring self exclusion and allowing me to lose €3100

Hi jblchr - welcome to ThePOGG.com!

As we are the ADR for the MT Secure Trade 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.

Do you have a record of the communication where you asked to self-exclude? Did you request that your self-exclusion carry over to other properties on the license?

You may find our free Responsible Gambling app BetBlocker useful. It allows users to restrict their internet capable devices from accessing over 12k gambling operator websites for between 24 hours and 5 years.

Thanks,

ThePOGG

I wrote a lengthy article including copy and pasted data which for some reason is not showing.

The short version is that MT Secure Trade is trying to use a trick.

I self excluded 2013 and 2016 on MT Secure Trade properties which Dunder also confirmed. However MT has sold some of their casinos such as Rizk and argument that by selling it to another operator they don´t have to uphold the self exclusions. Totally bogus and unethical argumentation.

For years I was unable to signup at any MT Secure TRade casino and out of the blue this worked...that is highly suspicious, as if they unblocked all problem gamblers in the hope of revenue generation.

Here is their "argumentation":

We are reaching out to you as we take the safety and well-being of our players very seriously and with that in mind and I would first like to apologise if we have not met your expectations here at Dunder.

We would like to inform you that your claim has been thoroughly investigated and after a careful review of your accounts across the licenses and all accounts have been permanently self-excluded. I would first like to clarify our licenses, Zecure Gaming Limited and MaltaSecureTrade Limited (MTST) are now two separate licenses.

After a review of your accounts, it was found that you indeed had accounts on the now Zecure Gaming Limited which were created in 2013 and 2016, these accounts were excluded accordingly, the latter accounts would have been on MTST license at the time. Zecure Gaming Limited and MTST were then separated and your account on Dunder was created on 2020-10-04 after the licenses were separated. Due to the license separation the self-exclusion from Zecure Gaming Limited would not have propagated to MTST onto your account on Dunder as it was a new account on a the current MTST license on which you did not have an exclusion.

Based on the above information with regards to your request in relation to a refund of your total deposits, we strongly feel that we have acted in-line with both our social and regulatory obligations, and due to this, we respectfully deny your request.

If you are not satisfied with the outcome or have further queries, may we please remind you that you also have the right to present your complaint to our ADR ThePOGG...

jblchrOct 12, 2020

safety and wellbeing of our players, inline with social and regulatory obligations....no offense...I have a strong stomach but this really is a smack in the face for all players who believe in fair play.

Hi jblchr,

The operator are in this case correct. The properties that now run on the Zecure Gaming Limited, including all player data, were sold to Betsson. As such, if your self-excluded accounts were with properties that are now owned by Betsson, the exclusions would not also be applied on the MT SecureTrade license. These accounts and their status information have been sold to a different group. MT SecureTrade no longer have any authority to access or make any changes to those accounts nor would they be updated by the new owners of any changes that are made to them.

Thanks,

ThePOGG

I have to disagree with you on this one.

I self excluded on further properties, not only such which were sold.

Basically for 3 resaons I am not able to follow your reasoning.

1) I as a player cannot be held liable for business decisions of an operator. Gambling is a highly sensitive business which involves responsability from the part of the operator regarding gambling issues. Else they would just be predators. If I voice that I have a gambling issue the operator must block me for the timeframe agreed and maintain this block for the future. Only exception would be termination of business operation. See it this way. With such a trick, any operator could sell a brand and then allow all self excluded players to play on new brands knowing that these people generate overaverage revenue.

2) We had an exact complaint such as mine and it was found for the player. In general I see numerous responsible gambling complaints vs. this operator.

3) As previously stated I not only self excluded on sites which where sold to Zecure gaming.

Due to the amount of money involved here which puts me under great financial stress there is no way I can let it slip. Thanks for understanding.

Hi jblchr,

You are entirely entitled to your opinion, but that does not change our position. Your self-exclusion is with the property you requested it at and as such on the license that property runs on. That being the case it is with Zecure Gaming, not MT SecureTrade.

If you are claiming that you are self-excluded, license wide, with properties that remain on the MT SecureTrade license we would need to know which properties specifically you believe you self-excluded at.

Thanks,

ThePOGG

I self excluded also on Casinoland which of course has also been sold.

So that I understand the matter correctly, because MT Secure Trade sold Rizk in February of this year, MT Secure Trade does not have to carryover self exclusions from this site. I find this hefty and irresponsible. My honest opinion-

i would like to point out that for years registration on any MT Secure Trade sites was impossible for me due to a network wide block.

There was a time when MT Secure Trade was very strict regarding responsible gaming. If you blocked yourself on one site you were blocked on all and could not sign up. Apparently in the process of selling properties which may or may not be due to cashflow issues they have changed their policy. Yet at no time was I informed about changes in this respect.

Now they suddenly let me register again and play, because they sold properties and apparently responsability with that. Regardless of what the view on this matter may be I feel this is not correct behaviour and I am fairly certain that in a court case a judge may also give me a partial blame but it can be basically ruled out that the casino is 100% in the right. I would say both the casino as well as Mt Secure Trade and possibly myself "for weakness" are to blame.

Given that this case is not going my way, for whatever reason, I have of course sought legal advice whichh supported my view of the matter and due to the large amount in question I will take appropriate action if necessary. The statutes of limitation in my jurisdiction allow me to pursue this matter until 31.12.2023 and peculiarities regarding online gaming from my country also give me a good chance of enforcing claims vs. the operator. On the downside it is expensive for me and the operator but if necessary I will have to take this step.

You may proceed with this complaint as you deem right. I am of course disappointed if it is entirely ruled against me and will respect your decision although I believe that solely a loophole helps the casino get through with a really dirty und unethical move.

In this case I am forced as previously stated to take the necessary legal steps. From what I read Dunder will become independent in the near future which however does not exempt them from responsability. Thanks for listening to my matter.

Hi jblchr,

Casinoland was not sold. Casinoland was never owned by MT SecureTrade. Casinoland were a whilelabel operation (a smaller company buying in their technical resources and license from MT SecureTrade). Casinoland obtained their own license and at that point terminated their involvement with MT SecureTrade taking all of their accounts with them. So yes, your self-exclusion on Casinoland would not carry over to other MT SecureTrade properties. It would now cover all properties on the One Click Media license.

The regulations are clear - self-exclusions, where a request is made for them to apply to all properties on the license - as is suggested by the term, apply to properties on the license. Where operators move license, as has happened here, it is the current owners and current license that are responsible for enforcing the self-exclusion, not the previously license that now have no control or authority over your account.

To be clear - there has been no change in the standards being applied. In fact the standards were clarified and tightened in 2016. And suggestions that the operator are experiencing "cashflow issues" are not well founded. They may be, or they may not, but your claim certainly does not indicate one way or the other.

Furthermore, we would not support the claim that anything "dirty or unethical" has transpired. While I understand your frustration, nothing targeted or malicious has occurred here. Your account has simply been transferred to new owners who are now responsible for it. The previous owners are no longer in a position to update the details on your account, extend or remove any exclusions etc etc etc. They will not know if you extend or remove your exclusion with the current owner of the account. They have not authority over it and therefore no responsibility for it.

I'm sorry to hear that you are disappointed, but there is nothing further we can do to assist you.

ThePOGG

Hello,

thank you for your input.

I also self excluded at Guts btw but they were also sold such as most MT Secure Trade properties.

Interestingly enough I ask myself whether selling player data without getting prior consent is in accordance to the GDPRA. I can confirm that I never consented to data migration to the new owner. This is a entirely new legal question.

I maintain that the argumentation that by selling a property a casino disposes of all self exclusion liabilities is on shaky grounds and would not stand if legally contested. I am absolutely positive that a 100% fault on my end casn be ruled out. The worst possible outcome is that it´s casinos and my fault to equal parts.

I have also gone through my personal archives and found a similar example where a casino group sold properties and I remained self excluded, so why MT Secure Trade respective Gaming innovation Group should have different standings are above me, of course it is convenient for them this way as it pushes revenue.

As I had previously stated it is very strange that for years it was impossible for me to sign up on any MT Secure Trade site (registration with my details failed) and suddenly I can sign up on all sites.

Anyhow, I have stated my point. You were not willing to follow my argumentation even partially from the beginning.

There is nothing I can do about that, you can rule in this matter as you deem right.

Nonetheless I have sought legal assisstance in this matter already and can confirm that my argumentation is not as weak as it was made out. If necessary I will take legal action against the operator and/or the respective group. My countries jurisdiction is advantageous to legal action in online gaming matters in particular regartding activity prior Oct. 15th.

Nonetheless thank you for your efforts.

Hi jblchr,

You are entitled to your opinion, but they are non-valid as far as this service is concerned.

As to your GDPR concerns, these will be addressed in the operator's privacy policy, but if you have further concerns you are welcome to take that up with your local information protection agency. This would not be the appropriate forum to address a concern of this nature.

ThePOGG

Thank you for your reply. I am evidently displeased about the complaint handling as for some reason I felt there was a strong focus for the operator from the beginning. I have sought legal advice to find out whether my case really is a lost one and the feedback was very different to what I am told here, a "clear case" as I was informed which is why that is the way I shall proceed in this matter.

Hi jblchr,

I'm sorry to hear that you are disappointed, but we've given clear grounds for all of the positions taken in this situation. As far as this case is concerned there is no claim for us to pursue. In that respect it is, as you say but with the opposite meaning "clear cut". There are no regulatory requirements under the MGA licensing system to require licensees to retain responsibility for properties/accounts/exclusions that they neither own any longer nor have any authority to manage/edit appropriately and in line with regulatory standards.

As to your email request to withdraw consent and "terminate" your account with this service, firstly, as you have already been given a ruling in each instance we were not processing your data as it had already been established that there was no case for us to pursue. The operators in these cases have not been contacted and we have no ongoing intention to contact them or share any of your data. That being the case, we certainly make note of your withdrawal of consent but given that we have already informed you of our view of your cases we would hope at this stage that it is clear that we will not be 'processing' (read 'sharing') any information on your claims with other parties.

Secondly, with respect to the termination of your account with this service - while we can certainly lock your account so you cannot access it if you wish - as we're performing a regulatory function in reviewing these issues we do have to retain the information you have provided us for a period of time (5 years) as documented in our privacy policy. I suspect what you were looking for was deletion rather than termination which is not possible. The reports that will be published on these claims will be redacted to remove any personal information as is detailed in our terms of use, but the file held about these issues will be retained for this period in case a regulatory review is requested. Let us know if you would like us to lock your account.

This service wishes you well with any steps you chose to take next and we're sorry we could not have delivered more positive news for you.

ThePOGG

Thanks for your update.

It is important to me NOT to delete this complaint as hinted, because regardless of the outcome this thread helps the community and other players being genuine (negative) experience. I hope other players dont fall in the trap I did. This way I provided a helpful ressource to other players.

You can still go ahead and lock the account as I just wont be using the service again.

Storing the information according to your privacy policy for 5 years is in tune with the eu gdpra. You at least follow the rules as opposed to certain operators who do what they want on all levels.

I wish you the best and thanks for the ongoing assisstance.