When a casino refuses a self exclusion request

[MRY]

Even if they didn't comply with your request, you already intended to delete the account, so why didn't you simply stop accessing the casino? Did you still have any money there? Why did you deposit more money? The casino was wrong not to comply with your request, but depositing more money and then losing it all is contradictory. I believe there's no way to complain anymore, since you gave them "reason" by continuing to gamble there...

I think he just wanted to test if the self exclusion request has been handled or not, that was why he deposited to the casino again, but he would have just deposited a small amount to test it or ask the casino support how the procedure works. If someone still makes a huge deposit after applying, maybe they just wanted to continue gambling because they are not yet ready to stop, but will small deposit, it can be seen as test. Just my opinion.

Little deposit may be understood as the technical validation process in order to make sure that the protection system is real. Eagerness to determine whether the administrative process works or not is a factor that can prompt individuals to find a way to perform a live test as opposed to just waiting to receive some news of uncertainty about it. In my opinion the intention to quit, and the desire to continue gambling is evident in the amount of money that they bet. We should be aware that the attempts to escape such temptations will never be easy without the solid system.

[Zadicar]

Even if they didn't comply with your request, you already intended to delete the account, so why didn't you simply stop accessing the casino? Did you still have any money there? Why did you deposit more money? The casino was wrong not to comply with your request, but depositing more money and then losing it all is contradictory. I believe there's no way to complain anymore, since you gave them "reason" by continuing to gamble there...

I think he just wanted to test if the self exclusion request has been handled or not, that was why he deposited to the casino again, but he would have just deposited a small amount to test it or ask the casino support how the procedure works. If someone still makes a huge deposit after applying, maybe they just wanted to continue gambling because they are not yet ready to stop, but will small deposit, it can be seen as test. Just my opinion.

I think you got him wrong, he was not testing the self exclusion feature but was serious about the self exclusion.  I have once seen his post about having some challenges in his gambling so I think the request for self exclusion was genuine. I don't know why the casino did not honor his request for self exclusion and I think it is a flaw on the side of the casino. But from what I gathered, it seems the casinos may still be in the process of reviewing his request for self exclusion.

Once a certain user would be asking for some self exclusion then this is something that do talks about seriousness of a particular gambler to quit up gambling. If its being offered or having that feature about self exclusion and if there's a user that would be asking out for such request then it would be just that best that they should be granting it. If they would be declining or ignore out such request then whats the use of self exclusion feature in the first place? That would be  that having the sense of irresponsbility and obviously they do wanted for their gamblers to get addicted and using up that tons of money or letting them lose even more on which this isnt how a business would behave. Well, we do know that they are aiming to make more money but they should be that professional on doing without having those kind of lapses specially on not to follow into the feature that they've been offering. We do know that gamblers would be that inevitably having those loses but its best that they would be doing it without having any issues.

[Muba20]

If a gambler wants self-exclusion on his own considering his gambling condition, I think it should be accepted by that gambling platform quickly. Otherwise, if the gambler loses in such a situation, it will definitely not be positive for anyone. Although the law cannot go much further on this issue, considering the nautical aspect, the casino platform should definitely accept that application quickly. And if someone makes his account more VIP level in this situation, it can directly have a negative impact on the gambler. A gambler should definitely know whether there is a self-exclusion feature at the gambling platform. The gambler should also understand that the gambler has to maintain control until the self-exclusion application is accepted.

[o48o]

This casino in question choose to only offer manual exclusion for a reason, and for this reason, you can't sue them sorry bro..

You can't sue them because since they do not have a self exclusion button on their website where users can click and expect to be self excluded immediately, so as far as self exclusion on this site is manual in the sense that you will have to send them an email and wait for their response, they are going to win you in court if you try to sue them because they are simply going to say that they don't have any specific time they reply to emails, and that you were told to wait that you will get a reply soon, it was you who didn't wait but choose to continue to deposit money and gamble on their casino when they were still in the process of approving your self exclusion request.

I don't know about others but personally, I've never used the self exclusion feature on any casino, I simply know how to quit gambling on any casino when ever I no longer enjoy playing there, I don't need to use the self exclusion at all.

I am not sure how this legally goes if one isn't citizen of a country that these laws are required by. Generally exclusion laws are meant to protect people on some regions, and self exclusion should be working in same way in every casino that are complying with that law. So there isn't any different kind of procedures for it from point of view of a casino. Not at least in paper.

In reality some casinos are probably working in gray area on this, and some of them don't see these exclusion requests as help desk jobs with high priority.

[Wakate]

If a gambler wants self-exclusion on his own considering his gambling condition, I think it should be accepted by that gambling platform quickly. Otherwise, if the gambler loses in such a situation, it will definitely not be positive for anyone. Although the law cannot go much further on this issue, considering the nautical aspect, the casino platform should definitely accept that application quickly. And if someone makes his account more VIP level in this situation, it can directly have a negative impact on the gambler. A gambler should definitely know whether there is a self-exclusion feature at the gambling platform. The gambler should also understand that the gambler has to maintain control until the self-exclusion application is accepted.

Honestly I can not really imagine why a gambling platform would refuse a gambler from self exclusion which is supported by the law and mandatory for casinos to allow gamblers to choose self exclusion so they don't become too addicted to gambling which can affect their mental health. If a casino do not approve a self exclusion, I think something should be wrong somewhere.

[Dr.Osh]

The fault lies with both parties, the casino and you. The casino seems to have intentionally given you VIP status so that you remain their customer. It was your fault for not being firm in your stance, you wavered and ended up falling into their trap. Every casino has different rules, but in general you have the right to claim your deposit amount because the casino is unprofessional.

[Onyeeze]

They were still under the process to put you on self exclusion before you went ahead to deposit and gamble again. The fact is that, you're the problem to yourself and not the casino because even if they activate your account on self exclusion, you will still open an account in different casino to continue gambling because it's clear that you are not ready to stop gambling if not, you wouldn't have made that deposit. Nobody will pay for your irresponsibility.

do you know that many people have lost their money through irresponsible thinking and actions, so we need to understand that we are not supposed to be gambling conscious and also we are not supposed to be gambling inquisitive because what pushed this person to do what is supposed to not do is because it's over interested in gambling and that is not high supposed to be in gambling we are supposed to apply a diplomacy also apply consciousness so that at end we will not misuse our capital our funds, so every gambler is supposed to think twice before taking a decision what is the problem of the op is because he was gambling conscious

[aioc]

After that, I was surprised again that they gave me a VIP status, my mistake is depositing more money and losing it. The question is, do I have the right to claim back the deposit since I requested a self exclusion but they didn’t do it. Knowing that I have searched for this matter and it’s my right to even sue them…. I need your opinion and let’s discuss this, I am free to answer your questions as well.

That's very unusual for a casino to give you a VIP status when you request a self-exclusion. Obviously, they don't want to grant your request and want you to continue playing, which you do, and eventually lose money. You have the right to a refund because they manipulate you into playing and losing instead of granting your request.

Why not open a scam accusation? You can help the community by naming this casino for that wrong practice if they have an announcement here. If you have the means and think the casino will not respond, you can sue them; you have a strong case.

[PrivacyG]

To make it clear, self exclusion is a right, not something optional. If someone ask to close his account and the casino still allow deposits after that, sorry but that’s on them not the player.

If they had Live Chat requests it would have been different I believe.  But as long as this was through Email, they can not immediately approve your request so Deposits are going to be there until the approval.  I do not know if this falls on their hands to give you your loss back, but in this situation it does seem dubious and can be one strategy to make you lose more in your peak of vulnerability.  After all, their business is there not to protect you but to get you addicted and take Money off of you.

-----

It was your fault for not being firm in your stance, you wavered and ended up falling into their trap.

How?  Their only fault was to think that self exclusion through Email will apply immediately.  They should have ran away from that Casino as soon as they found out.  But most of the blame should be put on the Casino for handling self exclusions in such a cunning way.