Cloudbet - targeting problem gambler from banned jurisdiction with false and misleading marketing

Hi abzzy - welcome to ThePOGG.com!

Unfortunately there is nothing we can do to help you in this instance. As explained in our Complaints FAQs we do not pursue refunds of losses based on lack of license. If your own government cannot prevent unlicensed operators from accepting their citizens, there is no possibility of the operator offering a refund simply on the basis of us asking them to.

You may find our free Responsible Gambling app BetBlocker useful. It allows users to restrict their internet capable devices from accessing over 18k gambling operator websites for between 24 hours and 5 years.

You can also find information on the various support agencies available to support you in your country in our Responsible Gambling Directory.

Sorry we cannot be of further help.

ThePOGG

I would like to respectfully request a reconsideration of my case based on the following points:

Misleading Marketing: Cloudbet's marketing materials explicitly targeted Australian players, despite my country's regulatory authority, the ACMA, having already banned them. This misrepresentation was a crucial factor in luring me back into gambling when I was actively seeking help for problem gambling.

Lack of Responsible Gambling Measures: Cloudbet's failure to implement responsible gambling measures, such as Know Your Customer (KYC) checks, allowed me to create an account and deposit funds even though I was from a banned jurisdiction. This demonstrates a clear disregard for player safety and compliance with their own terms and conditions.

Failure to Uphold Industry Standards: While I understand that ThePOGG may not pursue refunds solely based on the lack of a license, my case highlights a more significant issue. Cloudbet's actions set a dangerous precedent in the industry. They can freely target banned jurisdictions with misleading marketing and accept deposits, only to refuse payouts if players win, with no accountability.

I believe that by reconsidering my case, ThePOGG can play a pivotal role in upholding industry standards and holding operators like Cloudbet accountable for their actions. This not only affects me but also has broader implications for responsible gambling practices and the integrity of the online gambling industry

As a respected reviewer and ADR in the online gambling industry, ThePOGG plays a vital role in upholding industry standards and ethics. By reconsidering my case, you would be sending a strong message to operators that deceptive practices will not be tolerated and that players' rights and safety are of utmost importance.

Hi abzzy,

We appreciate your frustration but our response stands.

To answer your point:

i) Curacao does not restrict their licensees from accepting Australian players. This operator has adhered to the standards that they are required to adhere to by their license. If the Australian government views things differently, it's up to them to enforce their own laws. That is a fight significantly outside of the capacities of this or any similar service.

ii) Curacao does not currently place any requirement on their licensees as to when they engage KYC.

iii) Far from "sending a strong message", we have engaged with many similar claims historically and seen zero success or change in practice from the industry. This is not an effective use of our time or resources.

Sorry we cannot be of further help.

ThePOGG

I regret to inform you that there are inaccuracies in your response. Curacao indeed restricts its licensees from operating in prohibited jurisdictions, as clearly outlined in the Curacao Egaming General Terms & Conditions:

"2.14. The Operator is required, the Ordinance notwithstanding, to always comply with all Curaçao local as well as international rules and regulations."

This is the reason behind their inclusion of the following clause in their terms and conditions:

“7.1.2. We do not accept registration from persons resident in jurisdictions that prohibit you from participating in online sports betting, gambling, gaming, and/or games of skill, for and/or with Cryptocurrency.”

Regarding CDD/KYC procedures, the Gaming Control Board's Regulations for Anti-Money Laundering explicitly state:

“5.2 When to conduct CDD measures:

Casinos have the obligation to undertake Customer Due Diligence (CDD) measures when:

a. establishing business relations;

b. carrying out occasional transactions above the monetary equivalent of US$ 3,000;”

While past experiences may not have been fruitful, it is not a valid reason to ignore these breaches. The POGGS users who place their trust in your platform and contribute to your resources should rightfully expect The POGG to address this behavior and prevent further victims.

Hi abzzy,

I'm sorry you're disappointed, but our stance remains the same.

Given the lack of any enforcement of the above quoted stipulations by any of the regulatory authorities this is not a good use of our time and resources.

You have no right of expectation in this situation. We can and will assist where we feel a player has a viable claim. But we will not engage with what we view as lost causes simply to appease a disgruntled player.

Our efforts to "prevent further victims" are via our reviews and actively advising players not to engage with services of this nature, not through investing hours chasing claims that have no possibility of any return of funds for a player.

ThePOGG

I can offer numerous instances where Cloudbet has collaborated with Askgamblers, CasinoGuru, and other ADRs to address disputes related to funds.

To dismiss this as a hopeless situation is inaccurate. Labeling me as a 'disgruntled player' instead of recognizing me as a victim of illicit gambling practices suggests a concerning affiliation with these casinos.

It raises questions about potential behind-the-scenes arrangements with casinos, dictating which complaints are accepted or rejected in exchange for profitable referral payments

Thank you and have a good day.

Hi abzzy,

Please think rationally before you make insinuations of corruption simply because you didn't get the answer you were hoping for. Look at the review we have of this operator. It actively lists the operator as Not Recommended due to a history, over years, of failure to cooperate with this service when player complaints arise. Beyond this, we provide no links whatsoever for any player to click through to the operator (i.e. no advertising referrals). Unlike other services that you view positively, we don't engage any "referral" relationships with any operator we list negatively

If you feel other services are likely to view your complaint as viable, please feel free to engage with those services. We wish you the best of luck pursuing your claim. But don't look to disparage the integrity of this service simply on the basis of not getting the answer you wanted. The simple answer is usually the correct answer and the simple answer is that in our professional opinion and experience, investing time in this matter is a waste of this service's resources.

Where you play with weakly licensed or illegal operators, you can expect the protections that they offer to be little to none. Our intervention will not change that.

ThePOGG

They have now suspended Australian accounts, removed the Australian targeted marketing from their website and added Australia as a prohibited jurisdiction in their terms and conditions.

All of this in response to my complaint to them and their master license holder, yet they will not refund my deposits.

Given that they have basically admitted fault by taking these actions, I would appreciate it if the POGG would take my complaint on and attempt to resolve it with Cloudbet.

In your previous responses to me; you said a lot about why would casino operators return funds just because you tell them to.

That just undermines the entire complaint section of your website

Hi abzzy,

Our position stands. If you've taken the matter to the operator's regulator and they have not required the operator return any funds to you, as before, there's no viable possibility of them returning funds at our request.

While we understand you are disappointed that we will not act on this matter, we have clearly informed you on multiple occassions that we do not intervene in this type of claim. This information is also clearly laid out in our Complaints Guidance. Our policies on your claim are no different than they are for any other player. We do not take on disputes relating to the operator lacking appropriate licensing.

ThePOGG