Dear Orca Spins Casino,
The reasons provided for the confiscation of the player’s winnings do not appear to be fully aligned with fair practice principles and may potentially be inconsistent with your own Terms and Conditions.
6.2 Bonus & Coupon Balance
The following rule applies to all active bonuses and coupons:
(a) If a player has an active bonus/coupon and has not completed the required wagering, and the player’s balance drops below the system threshold (e.g., $1), the bonus/coupon will be automatically cleared and any remaining bonus balance will be removed.
As the player pointed out, their account balance at the time they accessed and played the video poker game was well below the $1 threshold referenced in the rule above.
I do acknowledge the rule 6.3.
6.3. Validity of Bonus Terms
Bonus terms remain in effect from the moment a bonus is claimed until the bonus is cleared from your balance. They continue to apply even after wagering has been completed and a withdrawal has been processed. An additional deposit does not override an active bonus or its terms. Any breach of these terms may result in winnings being voided under these Terms & Conditions. The bonus terms end only once a new deposit or bonus is processed and the playable balance is below $/€1.
However, we do not consider this rule to be fair or sufficiently transparent from a player protection perspective. Such a restriction does not appear to align with practices commonly adopted by reputable licensed operators, as it places the player in a position where bonus-related limitations can effectively persist almost indefinitely without adequate system-level safeguards—such as the restriction of access to games that are not permitted under an active bonus, which is particularly relevant in this case.
We would therefore appreciate clarification on how the player could reasonably be expected to understand that even the remaining few cents in their balance were not eligible for play on a video poker game, particularly where, according to the player, the platform did not clearly indicate that bonus restrictions remained active, still allowed full access to the game, and permitted the placement of bets.
to which you responded with the following:
Thank you for your detailed follow-up and for giving us the opportunity to provide further clarification.
We understand the questions raised regarding the interaction between Clauses 6.2 and 6.3. However, these clauses regulate different aspects of the bonus system and are not contradictory.
Clause 6.2 explains how the system technically handles the player’s balance in connection with the wagering requirement. It does not determine when the terms and restrictions attached to the bonus cease to apply.
Clause 6.3 governs the continued validity of the bonus terms. As clearly stated in this provision, the bonus terms remain in effect even after the wagering requirement has been completed, the funds have become withdrawable, or the playable balance has fallen below $1. The balance falling below $1 alone does not deactivate the bonus terms.
Under Clause 6.3, the terms end only when both specified conditions have been met: the playable balance is below $/€1 and a new deposit or bonus has been processed.
Therefore, completing the wagering requirement or having a balance below $1 does not automatically authorize gameplay on restricted games. Until the full conditions under
Clause 6.3 have been satisfied, all restrictions associated with the promotion remain applicable.
Regarding the availability of the video poker game, the fact that a game remains visible and accessible on the platform does not mean that it is permitted under the applicable bonus terms. Due to the technical configuration of the gaming platform, restricted games may remain available after the wagering requirement has been completed.
The system’s acceptance of a wager does not override the promotional terms or confirm that winnings generated through restricted gameplay are eligible for withdrawal.
The amount wagered is also not relevant to the restricted status of the game. Whether the wager was very small or whether the remaining balance was below $1, the decisive factor is that the player used funds still subject to the bonus terms on a game prohibited under those terms.
The distinction is therefore as follows:
Completing the wagering requirement determines whether the balance becomes withdrawable.
Clause 6.3 determines when the terms and restrictions connected to the promotion cease to apply.
These are separate stages within the bonus process.
Players are informed of the applicable restrictions through the terms of the promotion and the Casino’s Bonus Terms and Conditions, which are accepted upon registration and when a promotion is claimed. It remains the player’s responsibility to ensure that the selected game is permitted while the relevant bonus terms remain active.
We acknowledge that the balance and the wager involved in this case were very low. Nevertheless, neither the value of the balance nor the size of the wager creates an exception to the applicable game restrictions.
For these reasons, our position remains unchanged. The player participated in a restricted game while the relevant bonus terms were still active. Consequently, the winnings were correctly voided in accordance with the accepted Terms and Conditions.
We appreciate your cooperation and your careful review of this matter.
Kind regards,
Orca Spins Team
and i replied to that with the following:
However, the casino's explanation completely fails to address the core issue of system transparency and fair play. They are trying to hide behind a highly predatory interpretation of Clause 6.3 while ignoring how their own software actually operates in real time.
I would like to highlight the absolute flaws in their logic for the mediator:
1. The "Ghost Coupon" Loophole (Clause 6.3)
According to the casino's logic, if a player's balance drops to $0.01, the bonus terms remain active indefinitely until a new deposit is made. This means if a player plays a restricted game with that final, worthless $0.01 and loses, the casino keeps the money. But if the player wins, the casino invokes a backend rule to steal the winnings. This is a classic "freeroll" against the player, which dispute forums widely recognize as predatory and unfair.
2. A "Technical Configuration" or an Intentional Trap?
The casino states: "Due to the technical configuration of the gaming platform, restricted games may remain available after the wagering requirement has been completed."
This is completely misleading. As I noted before, Orca Spins does have functional game-blocking software. Earlier in my session, when the coupon was active, I tried to open Video Poker and was met with a hard error: "game unavailable due to restrictions. Contact support." The system physically prevented me from playing.
The game did not magically become accessible because it "remained visible." It became accessible because the system actively lifted the block the exact moment my balance fell below $0.50 and the wagering widget disappeared.
Conclusion:
If a casino has the technical capability to hard-block a game during a bonus, but explicitly programs its software to remove that block when a balance drops below a certain threshold, the player has every right to believe the bonus is dead.
The casino cannot use its own automated system behavior to signal to a player that a game is safe to play, and then retroactively punish the player on the backend because they won. I acted in 100% good faith based on the clear, programmatic indicators provided by their own user interface.
I kindly request that other site side with fair play and instruct Orca Spins to release my legitimate winnings
2 weeks ago. And yet you have not responded to this. But you can surely respond to this one in an instant, when the mediators have your side, unlike at other site, where again, its been 2 weeks with no repsponse from your end.
Just wanted to clarify that point.
Share on
Twitter
Facebook
Delicious
Reddit
Copy Page URL