Herní licence Anjouan Zodpovědná herní pravidla / chování kódu (strana 3)

Self-exclusion is meant to be a serious protection tool for players, and it must be treated as such.

I am writing this to highlight a pattern of behaviour that, in my opinion, shows how self-exclusion is being ignored and how vulnerable players are being exploited.

I have permanent self-exclusion active with one casino (22Bet). Despite this, I recently received promotional/spam messages from a related casino (20Bet), which strongly suggests that self-exclusion is not being respected across the same casino group. This is extremely concerning, especially when players have clear gambling problems and have taken the step to protect themselves.

In my case, and in other similar cases I have seen, there is evidence of a broader pattern:

Self-excluded players still receiving marketing messages

Access being enabled through alternative links or related brands

Vulnerable players being targeted instead of protected

This is not only irresponsible, but also an unfair and unethical way of generating profit by exploiting players who are already struggling.

Additionally, I strongly believe that KYC should be mandatory before any deposits are allowed. Without proper verification, casinos cannot know who is actually playing. This creates serious risks, including the possibility of underage gambling, which should never be acceptable.

I am not posting this only for my own case.

I am doing this to emphasize that self-exclusion must be respected across casino groups and brands, and that responsible gambling tools must not exist only "on paper".

Players who choose self-exclusion are asking for protection — not loopholes.

I hope Casino Guru and the community will take this seriously and look into whether these practices align with responsible gambling standards.

I just moved your other post here because it addresses the same issue, and I believe losing the context with AOFA as a licensing authority would be quite a shame. I hope you don't mind.

Hi Radka,

thank you for letting me know — I don’t mind at all.

I agree that keeping the AOFA context is important, especially since licensing authorities play a key role in how self-exclusion and responsible gambling obligations are enforced in practice.

My main intention here is to highlight how self-exclusion can lose its purpose when it is not respected across related brands or groups, regardless of the specific operator involved. From a player’s perspective, this creates a real risk, particularly for vulnerable players who rely on self-exclusion as a last line of protection.

I appreciate you keeping the discussion structured and contextual, and I’m glad this topic can be examined with the broader regulatory framework in mind.

Thank you.

Maybe adding a link to the associated complaint would also enrich the subject. However, I understand that self-exclusion and gambling harm are both sensitive matters, so if you don't like the idea, I'll erase the link.

Here on the forum, we strive to support such topics with concrete details, and complaints play a significant role in this effort.

To be honest, as we discussed earlier, there is actually no working broader regulatory framework when it comes to most of the offshore licenses; therefore, my colleagues are capable of applying our own fair approach instead. Once the specialist is assigned to your complaint, we shall learn more, of course.

Thank you, Radka.

I agree that adding a link to the associated complaint makes sense and can help provide clearer context. I am fine with including it.

I appreciate the careful approach given the sensitivity of self-exclusion and responsible gambling, and I’m looking forward to the specialist reviewing the full details once assigned.

I feel I should thank you for your openness and willingness to discuss topics that can be quite emotional, complicated, and important to address. Thank you for keeping this conversation running.

From my perspective, theoretical instructions, even in the form of a short article in casino terms, are one thing, but when it comes to the actual need for account closure, especially due to health risk, the events get more intense and thus complicated.

I'm not an expert for such debates, but I guess it is still vital to compare reasonable advice with the everyday casino reality. Let's say that sometimes stating "I want to close my account immediately and permanently due to gambling addiction" to the casinos is just a first step. In my opinion things would be much easier for players and casinos alike if the operators agreed to specific standards and procedures.

That's, by the way, something my colleague Šimon strives to achieve.

(https://casino.guru/team/simon-vincze That's him)

Thank you, Radka, for your thoughtful response and for acknowledging how complex and sensitive these situations can be.

I appreciate that Casino Guru is also looking at the broader picture, including initiatives such as the work led by your colleague Simon toward clearer and more consistent self-exclusion standards across the industry. I fully agree that having defined procedures would significantly reduce ambiguity and protect players more effectively.

At the same time, I would like to clarify the sequence of events in my specific case to avoid any misunderstanding:

• I have documented proof that my account was permanently closed due to self-exclusion on 21 October 2024.

• Despite this, I later received promotional SMS messages containing direct links, which allowed me to access the platform again.

• Those links bypassed the existing block, after which I was able to deposit funds that should never have been accepted in the first place.

• As a result of this failure to enforce self-exclusion, I suffered financial losses of approximately €8,000, which are fully documented through bank statements, payment records, and chat screenshots.

This is not a theoretical discussion for me, but a real-world example of what happens when self-exclusion mechanisms fail in practice. My case illustrates precisely why stronger, enforceable standards are needed — not only in policy, but in actual system behavior.

All relevant evidence has been provided, and I am fully cooperating with the complaint process. I believe this case can serve as a concrete reference point for the broader discussion around responsible gambling protections.

Thank you for continuing this dialogue.

Precisely, I see this as a sort of clash of theory challenged by the practices applied.

Back to the details provided: Do I understand correctly that those messages you mentioned allowed you access to your formerly closed account? Or were you perhaps allowed to create a new one?

Thank you for the clarification question, Radka.

To answer it precisely: I was not allowed to create a new account.

The promotional SMS messages contained direct links that enabled access to my previously closed account.

Before receiving those messages, I was not able to log in. However, after clicking the promotional link, I was taken to the platform and was allowed to reset my password, which then granted me full access to the same account that had already been permanently closed due to self-exclusion.

There was no new registration, no new identity, and no new account created.

This means the self-exclusion was technically bypassed, as a closed account should never allow login or password reset under any circumstances.

I have screenshots documenting:

the promotional SMS messages,

confirmation of my account closure,

the password reset process,

and the subsequent access and deposits.

I hope this clarifies the situation clearly.

Your experience appears to be the most severe of those two scenarios. Allowing a player to access a previously closed account, when gambling harm was the reason for the closure, is far worse than providing a promotional link for new registration.

I'd say that such action completely circumvents any system restrictions that the platform may impose.

All of the screenshots mentioned will undoubtedly have an impact on the complaint.

Hello Radka,

I just wanted to update you on the situation. Casino Guru has closed my complaint because I was unable to provide proof of my original self-exclusion request. As I mentioned before, I had deleted those emails and messages two years ago because I wanted to completely distance myself from gambling and move on.

I wanted to make sure you understand why the complaint was closed despite the documented timeline of events.

Hello Radka,

Just to keep you updated — I have now submitted a formal GDPR data access request to the casino asking for all records related to my account, including my original self-exclusion and account closure.

If they provide any documentation confirming this, I will share it with you.

Thank you for your time and guidance.

Hello. First of all, I'm sorry I wasn't here to respond. I felt ill, but I'm back "online."

Quite often are my colleagues from the Complaint Team in similar situations to yours. The situation seems clear, but we lack the evidence to confront the casino. I wish we could act differently, but from the practical perspective there is truly no way round it.

In my opinion, it was pretty smart to use GDPR as a way to get that email once more, and hopefully it will turn out positively.