Posting this publicly because the responsible gambling failures here are serious and well documented.
After explicitly disclosing gambling addiction, I repeatedly requested permanent self-exclusion from Bitz.
Instead of applying meaningful protection, Bitz:
* refused permanent self-exclusion
* only offered temporary restrictions
* continued promotional activity
* continued accepting deposits
* and later demonstrated that account access could be manually controlled at any time
Evidence:
https://imgur.com/a/VXGlbLKKey points shown in the screenshots:
**1) Gambling addiction disclosure + request for permanent block**
I explicitly state that I am a gambling addict and request a lifetime block.
**2) Casino refuses permanent self-exclusion**
Bitz states that permanent blocking is not possible.
**3) Only temporary restriction offered**
The maximum restriction offered was 6 months.
**4) Bonuses continued after addiction disclosure**
Instead of applying meaningful protection, bonuses and promotional engagement continued.
**5) Self-exclusion could be reversed manually**
Even after blocking the account, Bitz support later confirmed the account could be reopened on request.
That completely defeats the purpose of self-exclusion.
A self-exclusion system that can be manually reversed shortly after activation is not an effective responsible gambling measure.
Casino Guru reviewed the full case and concluded that the casino should have acted immediately after the addiction disclosure:
https://casino.guru/complaints/bitz-casino-player-s-account-has-not-been-permanentlyAt this point the issue is no longer whether protection tools existed.
The issue is whether Bitz chose to meaningfully apply them after clear notice of gambling addiction.
That is the core concern here.
