Response on Facebook to this article in Ontario, Canada https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/ont-man-denied-10-002-jackpot-over-casino-self-exclusion-rule-1.3306039
So if there is a self-exclusion rule, a system they imposed to prevent gambling abuse AND the lottery still allowed him into the casino to play doesn't that mean they violated the contract they'd created between the player and the casino?
As soon as they accepted his money into the machine they broke their agreement. In fact, by doing so they enabled a gambler to abuse gambling, the very thing they claim to be vigilant in preventing.
I'd sue the casino for $50,000 for violating the contract and for failing to clearly post the rules of self-exclusion at the door (and I mean a big a$$ sign not some little note behind the counter) plus allowing me to play while the self-exclusion contract was in effect (which they clearly knew about).
This website section uses a lot of satire and sarcasm to get points across. if you don't like it why are you reading this website at all?