The email rarely says “we are keeping your money”. It says duplicate accounts were detected, or that play was irregular, or that a promotion was abused, cites a clause number, and treats the matter as closed. It is not closed. Each of those phrases is an accusation, an accusation is the opening of an argument rather than the end of one, and the operator making it is also the party that profits if it sticks. This page takes the four standard allegations one at a time: what the casino has to establish for each, the records of your own that put it to the test, and how to answer in writing without handing over admissions it can quote back later.
What does the casino actually have to prove?
An operator that voids a win over a rule breach is making an allegation, and the burden of making it good sits with the operator, not with you. It must identify the exact term it says you broke, in the version published when you played. It must point to the specific conduct said to breach that term: which accounts, which bets, which dates. It must show the term was presented prominently enough for an ordinary player to have met it before playing, because a restriction buried out of sight is hard to enforce under UK fairness standards. And its response must be proportionate to what actually happened, rather than confiscating everything over a technicality. Your own records test all four elements: one verified identity, one payment method in your name, a bet history you can export, and the terms saved as they read today. An allegation that survives those checks is strong. Most are never particularised that far.
“You opened multiple accounts”
A duplicate-account finding needs more than suspicion; it needs a second account that is genuinely yours. That means evidence connecting the two: matching verified identity documents, the same payment instruments, the same devices or registered details, and a reason the connection amounts to control rather than coincidence. A cousin at the same address, a household sharing one laptop, or a partner with an independently funded account is not a duplicate. When the allegation lands, ask three things in writing: which account is said to be the second one, what identity evidence ties it to you, and when it was opened. Your side of the test is short. One identity that passed verification, one set of payment methods in your own name, and a registration you can date. An operator holding a real match can set out these particulars in a sentence. One reaching for a reason to cancel a win tends to answer by repeating the clause number.
“Your play was irregular”
Irregular play is a label, not a finding, and particulars are what separate the two. For the phrase to justify voiding anything, the operator has to be able to say which bets were irregular, measured against which published rule, and on which dates, because a clause elastic enough to describe any winning session runs straight into the fairness standards UK enforcement has already applied to gambling terms. So put the request in exactly those units, in writing: list the wagers relied on, quote the rule each is said to have broken, and state when each breach happened. Then check the reply against your own export of the bet history, taken before your access changes. Ordinary staking that happened to win is not a pattern, and betting a game the way it was designed to be played is not a strategy against the house. A reply that never moves past the label is itself evidence, and it belongs at the front of the escalation file.
“You abused the bonus”
A bonus abuse accusation has to clear four separate bars before it reaches your winnings. The term relied on must be clear, so that a player reading it would know what conduct it forbids. It must have been presented prominently, alongside the offer rather than three links deep, because a restriction doing this much work cannot live where nobody was pointed. The conduct must genuinely match it: structured, low-risk cycling of promotional funds is one thing, while playing an offer as written and winning is another. And the sanction must be proportionate, which is where wholesale confiscation over a marginal slip falls apart. Ask the operator to walk each bar in writing: the clause, where it was displayed on the day, the bets said to breach it, and why the penalty fits the conduct. The clause-by-clause anatomy of these disputes, from stake ceilings to game weighting, is set out in our guide to confiscated bonus winnings.
“Someone else was using your account”
The third-party allegation says the account was operated by somebody other than its verified holder, and it often arrives vaguest of all, with no session, no location and no date attached. Be honest with yourself first: nearly every site genuinely forbids letting another person play through your login, and where that truly happened the operator stands on firm ground. Where it did not, insist on the basis. Which sessions are said to be someone else’s, from which devices or places, and what makes them inconsistent with your own use of the account? Then answer from records rather than memory: funding drawn from your own accounts alone, activity consistent with your history, and a single, precise written statement that nobody else has accessed the account. Resist the urge to speculate about flatmates, relatives or borrowed phones. Volunteered theories have a way of returning as admissions. One denial, made once and made exactly, serves far better than five explanations.
How to reply without conceding anything
Whatever the allegation, the same discipline governs the reply. Keep every exchange in writing and decline to argue the matter through live chat, which operators treat as informal support traffic. Answer only what has actually been put to you: an accusation without particulars deserves a request for particulars, not a defence of conduct nobody has yet specified. Do not guess at what the operator might mean, do not apologise as a social reflex, and do not accept a partial payment described as goodwill while the allegation stands, because offers of that kind tend to arrive attached to waivers. Alongside the correspondence, quietly finish your own file: the bet history exported, the terms captured as they read today, the promotion page if one was involved, and every message the operator has sent, above all any in which the stated reason shifts. A changing story is among the most persuasive things an adjudicator ever reads, and only your archive proves the change.
Where the argument goes if the operator will not move
An operator that refuses to engage with particulars does not get the last word, and the route past it depends on the licence. Everywhere, the formal internal complaint comes first, run through the published procedure and pinned to dates. On a Gambling Commission licence, an unresolved complaint then travels, at no cost, to the approved dispute body named in the site’s terms, such as IBAS, once eight weeks pass or a final response arrives; the adjudicator can examine whether the term was fair, prominent and consistently applied, which is precisely the ground all four allegations stand on. On a Curaçao licence the rules changed in mid-2025: licensees now have to appoint an independent dispute provider certified by their regulator, referral costs the player nothing, and the outcome is expected to hold against the operator, while a report can also go to complaints@cga.cw. The Curaçao escalation sequence covers that side in full.
The accusation, the outcome and the honest limits
This page covers the accusation itself; two companion guides carry the outcome side. If the win has already been cancelled and you want the wider playbook for cancelled winnings of every kind, read our guide to a casino voiding your winnings. If the dispute turns entirely on promotional terms, the confiscated bonus winnings guide takes each mechanism in turn. Where the sum at stake is serious, our withheld winnings service will review the allegation, the term and your record, and say plainly whether a challenge has legs; that review costs nothing. The honest limits belong in the same breath. Beating back an allegation is argument, not entitlement; a loss by itself founds no case; an operator’s failure opens a question rather than writing a cheque; and no outcome can be guaranteed by anyone. If you want that straight read, start with a free eligibility check.
If gambling itself is the pressing problem, deal with that before any dispute: the National Gambling Helpline (0808 8020 133) is free and answers around the clock, GamCare (gamcare.org.uk) offers advice and treatment, GAMSTOP (gamstop.co.uk) self-excludes you from every UK-licensed site, and BetBlocker (betblocker.org) blocks gambling sites on your devices at no cost.
Sources
- Competition and Markets Authority, online gambling case file: the fairness standards applied to conduct and confiscation clauses.
- Gambling Commission, how to complain about a gambling business: the operator-first complaint sequence.
- IBAS, the Independent Betting Adjudication Service: free adjudication for customers of GB-licensed operators.
- Curaçao Gaming Authority, online gaming: the certified dispute obligation on Curaçao licensees.
Last reviewed: 31 August 2026.
General information, not legal advice. We are not solicitors or a law firm. We connect clients with regulated legal partners.