Stížnost byla zamítnuta nespravedlivě a v rozporu s pokyny Casino Guru.

I submitted a complaint here but was extremely surprised to see I have had my complaint rejected because "One of the key conditions is that the player must clearly mention gambling addiction or a gambling problem as the reason for requesting account closure", despite the fact that I explicitly requested a permanent self-exclusion and NOT an account closure.

Telling a casino I want to permanently self-exclude is by definition saying I have a gambling problem. If I requested an account closure, there is a reasonable interpretation that it could be due to other reasons, but there is no possible reasonable interpretation of self-exclusion from anyone involved in the casino industry that it could mean anything but that. If I am explicitly asking the casino to take control and stop me from being able to place bets in the future, it is because I do not have control myself. That is the definition of a gambling problem, and exactly what self exclusion exists to protect against.

I don't believe this is necessary, but I can even provided endless sources to back this up, including CG's own website e.g.:

Wikipedia: Self-exclusion (or voluntary exclusion) is a policy enacted by some governments and individual casinos to address problem gambling.

UK Gambling Commission: What is self-exclusion?

Self-exclusion is a tool used by those who have recognised that their gambling is harmful to them. It is for those who wish to be supported to stop gambling.

From Casino Guru's own website (gambling codex):

10. Self-exclusions

The casino's point of view

Casinos generally want to make sure that their players can gamble safely, which also includes giving them an opportunity to fully exclude themselves from playing. They don't want to make money from problem gamblers, which is exactly who the self-exclusion feature is made for.

The player's point of view

Players who are experiencing problem gambling issues need the option to self-exclude themselves because their gambling habits have gotten out of control. If a player wants to gamble during their self-exclusion period, it's likely that this could be against their best interests due to their lack of self control.

I have tried to reach out and state or at the very least discuss this multiple times, however, am finding it impossible to get an actual response as to how this criteria was not satisfied.

It is frustrating to say the least, when it takes time, effort, and trust in CG to open a complaint and thinking I will at least get some support in trying to mediate, and not even getting a chance because of a condition which is claimed not to be met, but is met by every reasonable/logical standard including Casino Guru's own standards.

Can common sense please prevail here and I get someone from the complaints team to review and reopen this. I do apologise for the lengthy post and greatly appreciate any assistance.

Hello,

the way I understand, your post reflects this recently closed complaint:

"Thanks for pointing out the facts of the case.

Please note that our ability to mediate a refund of lost deposits in cases where gambling-related harm is involved depends on specific criteria. One of the key conditions is that the player must clearly mention gambling addiction or a gambling problem as the reason for requesting account closure.

In an ideal situation, the status of your account should be communicated clearly via customer support after it was requested, or responsible gambling options should be presented by casino support. From the situation you encountered, the status of your request wasn't communicated sufficiently after it was received on one hand; however, without the disclosure of the gambling problems as the reason for self-exclusion, we conclude the responsibility for the account was still yours.

Since your account has already been closed, there is no further action we can take. For this reason, we regret to inform you that we are unable to uphold your complaint or request a refund of your lost funds, and the complaint will be closed. Thank you for your understanding. Even though we couldn't assist you further with this case, don't hesitate to contact us if you run into issues with any online casinos in the future.

Best regards,

Tomas"

Okay, I understand you believe things should have turned out differently. The Complaint Team members are not present on the forum and do not read the posts, so I recommend you send this to your former complaint mediator. Here on the forum, you are welcome to discuss the events with us, forum admins, or fellow players if you wish to.

Hi Radka,

Thanks for responding and for letting me know. I have tried to reach out to my former complaint mediator, but he has not addressed any of my concerns or provided actual reasoning, so I was unclear what the best course of action was. Is there anyone in the complaints team I can reach out to or who might monitor these threads?

Hi, thank you for sharing more details.

Did you also try to request the reopening of the complaint directly? From what I can see, this might be the only formal step available at this point.

Just to be fully transparent: once a complaint is closed, our mediators move on to the next case. It’s not that we don’t want to continue the discussion, but with the volume of submissions we receive, it's simply not realistic to engage in extended post-closure debates, even if we understand why many players would want that.

The final post in each case is meant to explain the reasoning behind the decision, and mediators only close complaints after carefully weighing all relevant details. I know this might not always feel satisfying, but I hope it helps clarify why the process works the way it does.

I did and it was closed again, without any of my concerns being addressed. I would let this go if there was any ambiguity in how this should be decided, but it is black and white.

The mediator said that asking for a permanent self-exclusion is not "mentioning a gambling problem as the reason for requesting account closure" when this is factually incorrect based on what self-exclusion means and is, and by Casino Guru’s own standards ("They don't want to make money from problem gamblers, which is exactly who the self-exclusion feature is made for").

I'm just hoping to get a second set of eyes over my complaint from someone in the complaints team, as it does take time and effort to raise, the mediator showed they did not read my complaint carefully (by asking for details already mentioned multiple times I had to reference previous posts), and made a judgement which goes against the sites standards.

Hi!

I understand that this situation feels deeply frustrating, especially when you've made a clear request and expected it to be interpreted in a certain way. But since you're asking for a second look and clarification, let me try to explain the reasoning behind our policy in a bit more detail.

There are currently no universal standards for how casinos must handle self-exclusion requests, not even when the term "permanent self-exclusion" is used. That’s the core of the issue.

Each casino has its own internal policy on how to interpret various player requests, especially when the player does not explicitly state that they are struggling with gambling-related harm. And without that specific mention, our Complaints Team cannot presume the context or intent. Not because we’re ignoring common sense but because we can't safely assume what a player meant without them stating it clearly.

Let me give you a practical example:

If someone writes "please close my account permanently, I don’t want to play anymore," we’ve seen this come from players taking a break for financial reasons, personal values, relationship pressure, or even just boredom. The word "permanent" doesn’t always signal harm or addiction.

On the other hand, if a player says

"Please close my account permanently as I have a gambling problem and want to self-exclude,"

then the context is clear and that triggers a different type of evaluation from us.

I do agree with you that self-exclusion is intended to protect people struggling with gambling. But unfortunately, that doesn’t mean the phrase automatically carries that meaning in every individual case unless the player makes it explicit.

So, our condition that "gambling addiction must be clearly stated as the reason" is not about denying your interpretation, it’s about ensuring there’s no room for misunderstanding. Especially because players can and do use terms like "self-exclusion" even when not referring to addiction.

I know this might not feel fair, especially in hindsight. But we apply this policy consistently across all cases because the alternative would be to make assumptions that could backfire for the player or even for the operator.

Let me know if this helps make sense of our decision, even if you still disagree with it. I genuinely appreciate how much thought and effort you've put into your posts.

Hi Radka,

I’m also genuinely appreciative for the extremely detailed response, and it does shed some more light. 

I just think that every regulator and casino on earth know exactly what the phrase self-exclusion means and is referring to, and 99% of players should know the same, and that it is significantly different than just requesting an account closure. Euphemisms exist for a reason, and many gamblers such as myself feel less embarrassed requesting a self exclusion than outwardly saying "please forcibly stop me from ever betting again because I have a gambling problem and can’t control myself". 

The onus should be on the casino to prove that the self-exclusion request was not related to gambling addiction, e.g. if the user said "please permanently self exclude my account I’m worried about my data getting leaked if my account remains active" then two weeks later "nvm please reopen my account", then the casino could easily make the case that the user didn’t know what they were asking. 

In my situation, my betting patterns would have been a clear signal, the casino confirmed they would self-exclude and then went radio silent in the days following when I said I was still able to place bets, and sent follow up messages, when they had never taken more than an hour or two to respond, and I could see they were active. There is no doubt they knew what and why I was asking this, but chose to ignore it to profit.

Maybe there is a good reason behind this like a history of difficult cases or player abuse, I just can't support the idea that Casino Guru won't pursue these because there is the potential (and in the past), gamblers have mistakenly used these terms in the wrong context. This is especially when it is laid out on the website, and it will no doubt lead to shady casino practices going unchecked.

Anyway, I'll leave it here but thank you again for taking the time to read through my posts and provide some context.

Hi again ben291,

First of all, thank you for your thoughtful reply. I completely see where you're coming from. It's true that both players and operators widely associate the phrase "self-exclusion" with gambling problems. And yes, many people do use it because it feels less confrontational or vulnerable than explicitly stating "I have a gambling problem."

That’s a valid point.

But your case also highlights exactly why we need to follow a strict standard when interpreting complaints. The absence of a direct reference to gambling harm introduces just enough ambiguity for a casino to claim a different interpretation, and that puts us in a position where we cannot objectively prove what was meant. Even if, like in your case, it seems obvious in retrospect.

And that’s what’s genuinely frustrating.

Not that you're wrong, but in situations this serious, we can't rely on shared understanding or good faith assumptions. We wish we could, but too many complaints have proven that’s a risky road for everyone involved.

We also agree that shady practices must be exposed. But the only way to push operators to act responsibly is by setting standards they cannot wiggle around. Requiring a clear statement of gambling harm is a painful line to draw, but it’s the line we can defend in every case, consistently, even against pushback from the casino side.