Casino guru could definitely be found guilty when everything gets exposed because they’re rating these casinos as "safe" "very safe". When people go looking for a casino they might use casino guru who is then advertising these casinos as safe.
I need this as well. There are many companies online who it could be so I think it will be impossible to find tbh
If it was a business standard then why are our casino payments processed through a seperate merchant under arts and galleries for instance, whilst our personal details are passed on from the casino to the merchant to create an account to create fake receipts.. is this business standard? Misuse of personal data is also known as identity fraud especially if these merchants are creating accounts in our names. I'm not sure what country you reside in but here in the UK it's illegal.
Casino guru could definitely be found guilty when everything gets exposed because they’re rating these casinos as "safe" "very safe". When people go looking for a casino they might use casino guru who is then advertising these casinos as safe.
Wouldn't think so as ratings would never be legally binding and they do say to check on everything yourself. I also understand their perspective on it as a business, even though I strongly disagree with it. I'm glad they continue to allow us to openly discuss on the thread though and highlight these issues. This thread will become an important part of the future of these kind of issues.
Im not questioning the ratings - we had this discussion previously, I understand how your ratings work. I was questioning your comment "doesnt neccesarily mean an act of scam". It is a scam/money laundering/fraud and its not my definition - it's literally the two biggest providers of card services on the planet that are stating this and it's their service!
You need to ask yourself this question - if these casinos had any ethics or legitimacy they would apply for Special Category Status(as all legitimate MGA/UKGC etc casinos do) to accept gambling payments. They 100% know what they are doing and have setup vast merchant networks to bypass the clear restrictions. It enables them to bypass banking blocks, credit card blocks and age restrictions and to accept ANYONE as a customer from anywhere in the world.
I am aware of that, and since my opinions are a bit different, I would prefer not to entirely ruin this discussion further. I am sorry to hear that my wording has offended you. I apologize.
I meant to say that a scam is something a little different from the perspective of the fair casino rules approach (let us ignore the ratings) or from the closest version of the perspective of Casino Guru evaluations. I am aware that it might appear to be blatant fraud to others. That's ok.
When it comes to bad/good principles, you're absolutely correct, and I did not expect to see such obstructions from the bank, card providers, or any other party involved.
In a perfect world, of course, everything would be completely different. Sadly, we have to navigate the current business standards. I'm sorry to see what addicted players have been through. I'm sorry the current state of stand-alone licenses supports these practices...
If you'll excuse me, I'll leave this thread because it is secured for the players and their perspectives.
Thanks for the reply — and I appreciate you taking the time to respond here.
I understand your position regarding licensing and legal frameworks, and I’m not disputing the fact that users should take responsibility for playing outside their jurisdiction. My concern isn’t just about licensing. It’s that my review and complaint included other serious and verifiable issues which were seemingly ignored, including:
Deposits being processed under masked MCC (Merchant Category Code) identifiers, disguising gambling transactions as purchases for unrelated services.
This practice directly violates Visa and Mastercard rules, which require gambling transactions to be coded under specific MCCs (such as MCC 7995 for betting) to ensure transparency, allow proper monitoring, and comply with local laws and card scheme restrictions — including the UK’s ban on credit card gambling.
A GDPR Subject Access Request (SAR) being refused entirely, with the casino stating the request was "unfounded and excessive" — something now under review by the UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).
I haven’t raised a chargeback and I’m not on Gamstop. I’m trying to share a factual account to help others understand the risks when playing on unregulated sites, especially when there’s no recourse, no support, and no real transparency from either the casino or the review platforms that promote them.
So I’m not accusing anyone here of bad faith — but when a review includes real, documented issues and is still rejected without proper engagement, it raises fair questions about how player protection is balanced with affiliate relationships.
Surely a platform that positions itself as a watchdog should give space for those conversations, even when the feedback is uncomfortable?
I am aware of that, and since my opinions are a bit different, I would prefer not to entirely ruin this discussion further. I am sorry to hear that my wording has offended you. I apologize.
I meant to say that a scam is something a little different from the perspective of the fair casino rules approach (let us ignore the ratings) or from the closest version of the perspective of Casino Guru evaluations. I am aware that it might appear to be blatant fraud to others. That's ok.
When it comes to bad/good principles, you're absolutely correct, and I did not expect to see such obstructions from the bank, card providers, or any other party involved.
In a perfect world, of course, everything would be completely different. Sadly, we have to navigate the current business standards. I'm sorry to see what addicted players have been through. I'm sorry the current state of stand-alone licenses supports these practices...
If you'll excuse me, I'll leave this thread because it is secured for the players and their perspectives.
Language used is not offending me, but it needs to be pointed out that I'm not forming an opinion that this practice is fraud - it literally has been confirmed by the card providers that it is and they also confirmed they will be taking action.
Don't leave it on my account - the discussions are good and may be useful for people who are encountering these problems to see other perspectives.
One other thing on top of these issues is the casinos who blatantly pay affiliate marketers in countries like the UK to advertise as "Not on Gamstop". Santeda sites are always top of that list, an extra layer of scummy that is. Not sure if these things can be taken on your ratings?
Thanks for the reply — and I appreciate you taking the time to respond here.
I understand your position regarding licensing and legal frameworks, and I’m not disputing the fact that users should take responsibility for playing outside their jurisdiction. My concern isn’t just about licensing. It’s that my review and complaint included other serious and verifiable issues which were seemingly ignored, including:
Deposits being processed under masked MCC (Merchant Category Code) identifiers, disguising gambling transactions as purchases for unrelated services.
This practice directly violates Visa and Mastercard rules, which require gambling transactions to be coded under specific MCCs (such as MCC 7995 for betting) to ensure transparency, allow proper monitoring, and comply with local laws and card scheme restrictions — including the UK’s ban on credit card gambling.
A GDPR Subject Access Request (SAR) being refused entirely, with the casino stating the request was "unfounded and excessive" — something now under review by the UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).
I haven’t raised a chargeback and I’m not on Gamstop. I’m trying to share a factual account to help others understand the risks when playing on unregulated sites, especially when there’s no recourse, no support, and no real transparency from either the casino or the review platforms that promote them.
So I’m not accusing anyone here of bad faith — but when a review includes real, documented issues and is still rejected without proper engagement, it raises fair questions about how player protection is balanced with affiliate relationships.
Surely a platform that positions itself as a watchdog should give space for those conversations, even when the feedback is uncomfortable?
I'd like to thank you back. As I said, I won't further fuel the "promotion" debate for the aforementioned reasons.
We told the operators and other parties the same thing each time we were asked to close and delete this thread.
I left a post about a week ago but didn't receive much of a reply. VISA have awarded my chargeback claim against PYD Processing to the casino despite PYD being unlicensed in the UK and somehow using the correct gambling MCC code 7995.
Does anyone know how that is possible? How they were able to obtain 7995 despite not having a license?
Is the MCC code something VISA attaches to payments? I've read to get that code operators must undergo stringent tests but that can't have been the case in mine?
Language used is not offending me, but it needs to be pointed out that I'm not forming an opinion that this practice is fraud - it literally has been confirmed by the card providers that it is and they also confirmed they will be taking action.
Don't leave it on my account - the discussions are good and may be useful for people who are encountering these problems to see other perspectives.
One other thing on top of these issues is the casinos who blatantly pay affiliate marketers in countries like the UK to advertise as "Not on Gamstop". Santeda sites are always top of that list, an extra layer of scummy that is. Not sure if these things can be taken on your ratings?
That's basically the purpose of this thread, yes.
The head of the data and Complaint team told me recently that we have no workable way to include such legal matters in the safety index—believe me, I asked. We are already literally hated by many casinos for opposing business standards and pushing forward, so, in my opinion, we also have to be cautious to ensure the same casinos we aim to push respond to players complaints, which remains a high priority.
(At this point, I don't think it is necessary to get back to the purpose of the Safety Index through the complaint effects. I'll skip that.)
Hi,
I'm currently putting together a dossier of evidence against Santeda. Do you have personal experience dealing with them? I was wondering if I could chat to you over email? Please message me at [email protected]
I'm not sure what it would achieve filing a complaint with casino guru? I came here originally due to the forum to help/share advice on getting deposits back. As I say I'd much rather have the 210k in my hands, wouldn't you? But unfortunately these sites refrained me from taking my winnings, despite being fully verified. Sad state of affairs.
I would, so I mentioned the complaint feature.
The complaints aim to assist players in resolving disputed winnings. If a casino is unfair, the best outcome is to get your winnings back or lower the Safety Index. However, I am afraid the complaint will not be successful if you have already tried chargebacks. Still, it's completely free of charge, so I'd say you risk nothing.
Hi,
I'm currently putting together a dossier of evidence against Santeda. Do you have personal experience dealing with them? I was wondering if I could chat to you over email? Please message me at [email protected]
I have lots on Santeda - will email you
I left a post about a week ago but didn't receive much of a reply. VISA have awarded my chargeback claim against PYD Processing to the casino despite PYD being unlicensed in the UK and somehow using the correct gambling MCC code 7995.
Does anyone know how that is possible? How they were able to obtain 7995 despite not having a license?
Is the MCC code something VISA attaches to payments? I've read to get that code operators must undergo stringent tests but that can't have been the case in mine?
They must have Special Category Status. Literally that coding is not available to use unless you have that.
If anyone deposited on Spinaway this site is displaying they are still licenced by 365/JAZ which was invalid as of August 2024.
I am working with my bank now for chargebacks under visa 13.5 Misrepresentation
Misrepresentation can be any of the following:
Innocent misrepresentation
Negligent misrepresentation
Fraudulent misrepresentation
Negligent misrepresentation is where things get risky. An example is selling a used car and telling the buyer that the previous owner changed the oil, when that’s not true. This negligence can lead to court cases if the merchandise causes damage to the cardholder.
Fraudulent misrepresentation involves intentionally falsifying information to persuade the buyer. Examples include falsifying accounting records, forging receipts, etc. Regulators and enforcement frown on fraudulent misrepresentation. Even with the chargebacks, merchants that do this can come under serious charges.
How do they get that? Basically lots of forms they have to fill in to prove what they do and that they have a license? So either VISA have screwed up massively by granting them that without a UKGC license or PYD forged a document to show they did?
Im guessing it shouldn't actually be possible for them to get this status without that?
How do they get that? Basically lots of forms they have to fill in to prove what they do and that they have a license? So either VISA have screwed up massively by granting them that without a UKGC license or PYD forged a document to show they did?
Im guessing it shouldn't actually be possible for them to get this status without that?
Would have had to go through the due diligence process at some point. They may well be payment processors for another legitimate casino operator. Nothing to do with UKGC licence - they may have been a processor for an MGA or other jurisdiction at a point in time and applied for the status.
Question
Bank keeps rejecting my chargebacks saying they need more info, like what was ordered/ the colour, the size. Etc -How do I go about giving that info? Anything I can say / use ??
Tell them digital goods and downloads and subscriptions. That never come to you x
I always say it's for digital games, expansion packs and codes to unlock stuff but of course I don't get them. It's sad we have to fabricate to the banks, they just have no care for us. Good luck lovely! X
Cursos educativos, profesionales y gratuitos para empleados de casinos online que tienen el objetivo de hacer un repaso de las buenas prácticas de la industria para mejorar la experiencia del jugador y ofrecer un enfoque justo de los juegos de azar.
Hemos puesto en marcha esta iniciativa con el objetivo de crear un sistema global de autoexclusión que permitirá que los jugadores vulnerables bloqueen su propio acceso a los sitios de juego online.
Una plataforma creada para mostrar el trabajo que llevamos a cabo para hacer realidad una industria del juego online más transparente y segura.
Un proyecto ambicioso cuyo objetivo es celebrar el trabajo de las empresas más responsables del mundo del iGaming y ofrecerles el reconocimiento que merecen.
En breve te redirigiremos al sitio web del casino. Debes esperar un poco. Si usas un bloqueador de anuncios, comprueba su configuración.
