[Chargeback] - Ulm Regional Court rules in favor of player
23rd Jan. 2020, at 11:57 am CET#144
0 Likes
Nobody has liked this post so far
Stromberg wrote on 23.01.2020 at 11:55
He writes but it is for him about 15000.
Fur PP u. U. around million amounts, if he gets right and other plaintiffs follow...
Correct, because if I 10,000 EUR are indifferent then it comes me on another 15,000 EUR also no longer depends on it!
Also do not know so really in which parallel world "Our Charly" lives^^. Especially that I would be aggressive because unlike some others here I vertehe it to articulate and also to understand the written and selbiges also on the "sheet of paper" to bring but everything has just from my side the necessary bite
[Chargeback] - Ulm Regional Court rules in favor of player
23rd Jan. 2020, at 12:17 pm CET#145
0 Likes
Nobody has liked this post so far
Ok people, before false hopes germinate here let's hold on to that
There is so far ONE judgment per player. Here is the aforementioned verdict of the LG Ulm
PP will appeal and even after that, the legal process will not be exhausted
The arguments presented against this ruling also seem understandable and we will see what the OLG has to say about it
In contrast, there are rulings by the LG Wuppertal, Munich, Düsseldorf and other AG decisions that are in favor of payment service providers. And their arguments are more conclusive than those of the Ulm Regional Court
I don't want to spoil Born's party mood, but I see things rather black
Transferring the responsibility to the payment service Provider does not seem to make sense, since the player has initiated and authorized the payment himself
Even via the MCC, it is not necessarily clear where the payment is going
Paypal has discontinued the service to date because the legal situation is now being clarified
If it turns out in favor of PP, it will be open again very quickly
This post has been translated automatically
Anonym
Former Member
[Chargeback] - Ulm Regional Court rules in favor of player
23rd Jan. 2020, at 12:18 pm CET#146
1 Like
Liked this post: Anonym
Born4Nothing wrote on 01/23/2020 at 11:57 AM
Correct, because if I don't care about 10,000 EUR then I don't care about another 15,000 EUR either!
Also do not know so really in which parallel world "Our Charly" lives^^. Especially that I would be aggressive because unlike some others here I vertehe it to articulate and also to understand the written and selbiges also on the "sheet of paper" to bring but everything has just from my side the necessary bite
You don't need to discuss with some people here. Since you can also just talk to a wall.
I hope you succeed with your lawsuit because I wish that many people then follow!
The "big" companies trick and fool namely enough what laws concerns and that would be times a little bit of justice.
No one would try to reclaim his money if all the online gambling would be legal.
And to all those who see the chargeback as morally and character questionable do not have to do it.
From the casinos you have been screwed anyway
As my lawyer once said, law and justice - are two very different things.
Ask me if someone would sue Cashbacks ei if he is clearly in the plus
Oh ne there I press then also an eye to and am glad that the evil PayPal Mafia has processed my deposit.
Let's assume. You Deposit with Paypal 50€. Win 10.000€. But now Paypal has reversed the payment because as you say gambling - Illegal and so on.
In your opinion, I must now be glad that the payment Provider has kept to the law?
Or do I now turn to the MGA and make a fuss
[Chargeback] - Ulm Regional Court rules in favor of player
23rd Jan. 2020, at 12:59 pm CET#148
0 Likes
Nobody has liked this post so far
Slothot wrote on 01/23/2020 at 12:17 pm: Ok guys, before false hopes germinate here let's hold on to this
There is ONE judgment per player so far. Here is the said verdict of the LG Ulm
PP is appealing and even after that, the legal process will not be exhausted
The arguments presented against this ruling also seem understandable and we will see what the OLG has to say about it
In contrast, there are rulings by the LG Wuppertal, Munich, Düsseldorf and other AG decisions that are in favor of payment service providers. And their arguments are more conclusive than those of the Ulm Regional Court
I don't want to spoil Born's party mood, but I see things rather black
Transferring the responsibility to the payment service Provider does not seem to make sense, since the player has initiated and authorized the payment himself
Even via the MCC, it is not necessarily clear where the payment is going
Paypal has discontinued the service to date because the legal situation is now being clarified
If it turns out in favor of PP, it will be open again very quickly.
Well, I seem to remember that there were quite a few more per player
But these were settled in the appeal by out-of-court settlements.
What I don't understand: Why (should) there be the possibility to go to the ECJ with this lawsuit?
[Chargeback] - Ulm Regional Court rules in favor of player
23rd Jan. 2020, at 01:00 pm CET#149
1 Like
Liked this post: Anonym
It doesn't make sense to transfer responsibility to the payment service Provider, since the player initiated and authorized the payment himself. Even via the MCC, it is not necessarily clear where the payment is going.
This may be true, but my case is clearly different, because the purpose of the transaction was more than clearly declared: "888poker" - and Poker is illegal. PayPal could see on the basis of the intended purpose 100% the payment for POKER and would have had to block accordingly this transaction! Paypal cannot come now with it: "We do not know for what the money finds use and has itself so tried to talk out. Literally just play dumb because that's exactly how PayPal argued.
In addition, there is also the fact that I could prove everything, but also really everything completely even if this was associated with a lot of work. Others just complain about it and then wonder if you do not have everything relevant together! I have not made this mistake.
The arguments presented against this ruling also seem understandable and we will see what the OLG has to say about it
True
What I do not understand: Why (should) there be the possibility to go to the ECJ in this lawsuit?
I also ask myself this...
Let's assume. You Deposit 50€ with Paypal. Win 10.000€. But now Paypal has reversed the payment because as you say gambling - Illegal and so on.
If that were so then I and everyone else would also have to abide by the law and would also accept that whether you want or not!
Let's say you find a suitcase full of money and there are several thousand euros in it. Are you a set loyal citizen and report this or do you satisfy your greed and pocket the coal although you know exactly that everything over 10 EUR is forbidden and is called lost property. If you Risk it anyway, even though you know that depending on the amount, the misappropriation can be punished with a prison sentence of up to three years or with a fine...
[Chargeback] - Ulm Regional Court rules in favor of player
23rd Jan. 2020, at 01:29 pm CET#150
0 Likes
Nobody has liked this post so far
Well, the ECJ also monitors compliance with European law and its application in the EU
For this purpose, a German court (also you or PP) could appeal to the ECJ to have this question in particular clarified in the last instance in the sense of the supranational legislation of the EU (see Malta and Gibraltar licenses)
Also as keywords should be mentioned the prohibition of discrimination and the freedom to provide services from the Treaties on the Functioning of the European un ion
This would then have the character of law and Germany would have to convert such a judgment into national law. In addition, a judgment of the ECJ is binding for German courts
See also the overturning of the State Treaty on Gambling a few years ago
Since the BGH is not really interested!
Honestly, the matter is far from over with the LG Ulm and my assessment is that the OLG will no longer follow the opinion
Your reasoning is also not valid insofar as you say gambling would be prohibited, but still give the payment in order
It is not the task of PP to check whether you are transferring money in accordance with the law
See also the comments of the Wuppertal Regional Court
[Chargeback] - Ulm Regional Court rules in favor of player
23rd Jan. 2020, at 01:35 pm CET#151
0 Likes
Nobody has liked this post so far
Slothot wrote on 01/23/2020 at 13:29: Well, the ECJ also watches over the compliance with European law and the application of the same in the EU
To this end, a German court (including you or PP) could appeal to the ECJ to have this issue in particular clarified in the last instance in terms of supranational legislation of the EU (see Malta and Gibraltar licenses)
This would then have the character of law and Germany would have to convert such a ruling into national law. Furthermore, a ruling by the ECJ is binding for German courts
See also the overturning of the State Treaty on Gambling a few years ago
Since the BGH is not really interested!
Honestly, the matter is far from over with the LG Ulm and my assessment is that the OLG will no longer follow the opinion
Your reasoning is also not valid insofar as you say gambling would be prohibited, but still give the payment in order
It is not the task of PP to check whether you are transferring money in accordance with the law
See also the comments of the Wuppertal Regional Court
But things can also turn out quite differently.
Thank you for the explanation. I actually thought that would not be possible, because this is a, I'll call it, business relationship between the plaintiff and PP. So quasi on a national level.
I was not aware that due is possible for any type of case
[Chargeback] - Ulm Regional Court rules in favor of player
23rd Jan. 2020, at 01:41 pm CET#152
0 Likes
Nobody has liked this post so far
[code]GlüStV
§ 4 General provisions
(1)Public Games of chance may only be organized or brokered with the permission of the competent authority of the respective country. [sup]2[/sup]Organizing and brokering without such permission (unauthorized gambling) and involvement in payments in connection with unauthorized gambling are prohibited.[/code]
Here it stands nevertheless black on white: The OC organize this without permission and the payment service providers mediate selbiges on behalf of the OC and cooperate also consciously although the OC and their payment service providers this is known, but totally ignored, and now is supposed to be the one, where the transfer arranges the culprit!
[Chargeback] - Ulm Regional Court rules in favor of player
23rd Jan. 2020, at 01:57 pm CET#153
0 Likes
Nobody has liked this post so far
Right! And a sticking point could be that this ban should be monitored by the licensing authority!!!! should be monitored. But where is that!!!
That would be their job. And not that of PP
And furthermore, what about the principle of equality? What distinguishes the payment of PP MATERIAL, not FORMAL, from that of Sofort, KK, Skrill, Giropay or what do I know what?
I think that will be one of the sticking points and main arguments of PP
No matter what you do, think twice! Your health comes first. I think that this is a basically dead horse, which was lucky once again at the LG Ulm
With almost all other not!
And I think that the OLG decides differently
And then consider please still the possibility of the revision with the BGH and this kind "norm control function" with the EuGH
[Chargeback] - Ulm Regional Court rules in favor of player
Nobody has liked this post so far
Correct, because if I 10,000 EUR are indifferent then it comes me on another 15,000 EUR also no longer depends on it!
Also do not know so really in which parallel world "Our Charly" lives^^. Especially that I would be aggressive because unlike some others here I vertehe it to articulate and also to understand the written and selbiges also on the "sheet of paper" to bring but everything has just from my side the necessary bite
This post has been translated automatically
[Chargeback] - Ulm Regional Court rules in favor of player
Nobody has liked this post so far
There is so far ONE judgment per player. Here is the aforementioned verdict of the LG Ulm
PP will appeal and even after that, the legal process will not be exhausted
The arguments presented against this ruling also seem understandable and we will see what the OLG has to say about it
In contrast, there are rulings by the LG Wuppertal, Munich, Düsseldorf and other AG decisions that are in favor of payment service providers. And their arguments are more conclusive than those of the Ulm Regional Court
I don't want to spoil Born's party mood, but I see things rather black
Transferring the responsibility to the payment service Provider does not seem to make sense, since the player has initiated and authorized the payment himself
Even via the MCC, it is not necessarily clear where the payment is going
Paypal has discontinued the service to date because the legal situation is now being clarified
If it turns out in favor of PP, it will be open again very quickly
This post has been translated automatically
[Chargeback] - Ulm Regional Court rules in favor of player
Liked this post: Anonym
You don't need to discuss with some people here. Since you can also just talk to a wall.
I hope you succeed with your lawsuit because I wish that many people then follow!
The "big" companies trick and fool namely enough what laws concerns and that would be times a little bit of justice.
No one would try to reclaim his money if all the online gambling would be legal.
And to all those who see the chargeback as morally and character questionable do not have to do it.
From the casinos you have been screwed anyway
This post has been translated automatically
[Chargeback] - Ulm Regional Court rules in favor of player
Liked this post: Anonym,
Zwischenmeister
Ask me if someone would sue Cashbacks ei if he is clearly in the plus
Oh ne there I press then also an eye to and am glad that the evil PayPal Mafia has processed my deposit.
Let's assume. You Deposit with Paypal 50€. Win 10.000€. But now Paypal has reversed the payment because as you say gambling - Illegal and so on.
In your opinion, I must now be glad that the payment Provider has kept to the law?
Or do I now turn to the MGA and make a fuss
You like to turn things right as you want
This post has been translated automatically
[Chargeback] - Ulm Regional Court rules in favor of player
Nobody has liked this post so far
Well, I seem to remember that there were quite a few more per player
But these were settled in the appeal by out-of-court settlements.
What I don't understand: Why (should) there be the possibility to go to the ECJ with this lawsuit?
This post has been translated automatically
[Chargeback] - Ulm Regional Court rules in favor of player
Liked this post: Anonym
This may be true, but my case is clearly different, because the purpose of the transaction was more than clearly declared: "888poker" - and Poker is illegal. PayPal could see on the basis of the intended purpose 100% the payment for POKER and would have had to block accordingly this transaction! Paypal cannot come now with it: "We do not know for what the money finds use and has itself so tried to talk out. Literally just play dumb because that's exactly how PayPal argued.
In addition, there is also the fact that I could prove everything, but also really everything completely even if this was associated with a lot of work. Others just complain about it and then wonder if you do not have everything relevant together! I have not made this mistake.
True
I also ask myself this...
If that were so then I and everyone else would also have to abide by the law and would also accept that whether you want or not!
Let's say you find a suitcase full of money and there are several thousand euros in it. Are you a set loyal citizen and report this or do you satisfy your greed and pocket the coal although you know exactly that everything over 10 EUR is forbidden and is called lost property. If you Risk it anyway, even though you know that depending on the amount, the misappropriation can be punished with a prison sentence of up to three years or with a fine...
This post has been translated automatically
[Chargeback] - Ulm Regional Court rules in favor of player
Nobody has liked this post so far
For this purpose, a German court (also you or PP) could appeal to the ECJ to have this question in particular clarified in the last instance in the sense of the supranational legislation of the EU (see Malta and Gibraltar licenses)
Also as keywords should be mentioned the prohibition of discrimination and the freedom to provide services from the Treaties on the Functioning of the European un ion
This would then have the character of law and Germany would have to convert such a judgment into national law. In addition, a judgment of the ECJ is binding for German courts
See also the overturning of the State Treaty on Gambling a few years ago
Since the BGH is not really interested!
Honestly, the matter is far from over with the LG Ulm and my assessment is that the OLG will no longer follow the opinion
Your reasoning is also not valid insofar as you say gambling would be prohibited, but still give the payment in order
It is not the task of PP to check whether you are transferring money in accordance with the law
See also the comments of the Wuppertal Regional Court
But things can also turn out quite differently
This post has been translated automatically
[Chargeback] - Ulm Regional Court rules in favor of player
Nobody has liked this post so far
Thank you for the explanation. I actually thought that would not be possible, because this is a, I'll call it, business relationship between the plaintiff and PP. So quasi on a national level.
I was not aware that due is possible for any type of case
This post has been translated automatically
[Chargeback] - Ulm Regional Court rules in favor of player
Nobody has liked this post so far
§ 4 General provisions
(1)Public Games of chance may only be organized or brokered with the permission of the competent authority of the respective country. [sup]2[/sup]Organizing and brokering without such permission (unauthorized gambling) and involvement in payments in connection with unauthorized gambling are prohibited.[/code]
Here it stands nevertheless black on white: The OC organize this without permission and the payment service providers mediate selbiges on behalf of the OC and cooperate also consciously although the OC and their payment service providers this is known, but totally ignored, and now is supposed to be the one, where the transfer arranges the culprit!
We will all find out in the end, at some point^^
This post has been translated automatically
[Chargeback] - Ulm Regional Court rules in favor of player
Nobody has liked this post so far
That would be their job. And not that of PP
And furthermore, what about the principle of equality? What distinguishes the payment of PP MATERIAL, not FORMAL, from that of Sofort, KK, Skrill, Giropay or what do I know what?
I think that will be one of the sticking points and main arguments of PP
No matter what you do, think twice! Your health comes first. I think that this is a basically dead horse, which was lucky once again at the LG Ulm
With almost all other not!
And I think that the OLG decides differently
And then consider please still the possibility of the revision with the BGH and this kind "norm control function" with the EuGH
You will need a lot of air...
This post has been translated automatically