Complaint Self Exclusion Breach on Stake KYC Approved Despite My Exclusion

[zeljko5]

Hello everyone,

I want to share my experience with Stake.com in case it helps others and to ask for advice.

I had previously activated self-exclusion on Stake.com because I realized gambling is not suitable for me and I wanted to prevent access due to personal difficulties.

Despite this, I was able to create a new account using the same personal details and the same identification document, and my KYC verification was approved.

Self-exclusion is meant to prevent access based on a person’s identity, not just an email. Because my new account was verified, I was able to continue gambling, returning to activity I had previously decided to stop, which resulted in financial losses.

I fully acknowledge my responsibility, but I believe this case highlights a failure in Stake’s self-exclusion and identity verification processes, which could potentially give rise to legal or regulatory review if not addressed.

Has anyone experienced something similar? Any advice on how to approach Stake for a fair resolution would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

[AHOYBRAUSE]

I always thought they did a pretty good job with limits, self exclusion and other things. Actually of all the places I ever used they have the most options deposit/losing/wager limits, self exclusion for flexible numbers of days/weeks/months.

I'm myself self excluded for 3 months actually (break of play) since I didn't like this site anymore and wanted to check if there is some sort of "welcome back bonus" or something once it ends.

What happened to you shouldn't happen obviously. Once they get the same credentials KYC should be instantly denied, easy as that. Yet, obviously it's also your responsibility, that's true. Also, you could have easily made an account at any other the other hundreds of casino sites.
Well, all you can do is talk to the live support I guess and find out what they have to say about that.

[zeljko5]

You're 100% right: once the same credentials and the same ID document go through KYC, that should be an instant denial.
That's exactly what didn't happen in my case. Same full name, same date of birth, same address, same government-issued ID — all approved.

I already went through Stake support formally. Here's how that went:

- First response: "funds used for gambling purposes are not refundable"
- Second response (agent Jovana): "We cannot provide any compensation for funds lost"
- Final response: "We apologise if you are not satisfied. You are welcome to take any action you deem necessary."

No escalation to compliance. No review of how the KYC failure happened. No explanation. Just three copy-paste dismissals.

What makes this case serious isn't just my individual loss. It's what it proves about their system: self-exclusion at Stake is enforced by email address, not by identity. The moment you use a different email, the protection disappears — even if your passport, name, DOB and address are identical to the excluded account. That's not responsible gambling, that's a checkbox.

I've now filed a formal complaint with the Curaçao Gaming Authority (their licensor) and submitted a PAB case to AskGamblers. Everything is documented.

For anyone else who has self-excluded on Stake — be aware that the exclusion may not be as robust as you think. And if anyone here has gone through AskGamblers or CGA against Stake and wants to share what the process was like, I'd genuinely appreciate it.

[rohang]

I always thought if we do kyc with same documents it will be rejected

Very very surprised to read they approved ur kyc with same details, especially after self exclusion

If amount is significant, only way forward should be litigation. They wont refund with any other way

[Shishir99]

Is this an official scam accusation? Or just an informal thread about your experience? If you consider it a scam accusation thread, then please follow the scam accusation format. But if it is just for discussion, then let's discuss. While I totally understand your concern, I would like to tell you that I do not personally like people like you. I am pretty straightforward about it.

You know you have self-excluded due to gambling addiction, but let's say you still wanted to gamble. You could have chosen other casinos where you never created an account. There are thousands of alternatives today. But you still chose Stake, why? It's because you knew you were pointing a finger at them. You just wanted to have a free rollover. Good luck with these shitty tactics. It does not work anymore.

[zeljko5]

I appreciate the directness, but your assumption is wrong.
I did not choose Stake to exploit them. I chose Stake because I had played there before my self-exclusion — I was already familiar with the platform, and specifically with their instant payouts. That is the only reason. Not strategy, not a planned "free rollover."
I relapsed — that is what addiction looks like. It is not calculated. If it were rational, I would not have needed self-exclusion in the first place.
The point of self-exclusion is precisely to protect people from themselves during moments of weakness. That system failed. Same passport, same name, same date of birth, same address — KYC approved. That is not a "shitty tactic," that is a documented compliance failure.
I am asking why their identity verification cannot detect the same government-issued ID that was already linked to an excluded account. That is a technical and regulatory question, not a moral one about me personally.
You are free to dislike me. But the failure of their system is real regardless of your opinion of me.

[yhiaali3]

I am asking why their identity verification cannot detect the same government-issued ID that was already linked to an excluded account. That is a technical and regulatory question, not a moral one about me personally.
You are free to dislike me. But the failure of their system is real regardless of your opinion of me.

The only explanation for this question is that they don't have a self-exclusion system. If their self-exclusion system were real and enabled, it should have immediately detected that the KYC data you provided was linked to a self-excluded account and therefore rejected it immediately. Since they simply accepted it, this means it's either inactive or failing.

There was a similar case in this section for another casino regarding the same issue of self-exclusion breach with a licensed casino, but unfortunately no solution was reached and they refused to refund the money.

[noorman0]

-snip-
It's what it proves about their system: self-exclusion at Stake is enforced by email address, not by identity. The moment you use a different email, the protection disappears — even if your passport, name, DOB and address are identical to the excluded account. That's not responsible gambling, that's a checkbox.

I think it's plausible that in cases of severe addiction, gamblers might even resort to criminal activity to continue gambling, such as using or buying someone else's identity.
I believe no technical measure can 100% prevent addicts from returning to gambling, and some casinos deliberately exploit this. The bottom line is that in an offshore casino environment, the ultimate responsibility remains with the player, not the protection system.

[acroman08]

Any chance you could provide evidence? like screenshots of your request for self exclusion on your first account, and you being able to pass KYC verification? Anyway, I've seen similar case before, but not with stake.com(at least if I remember correctly).

Has anyone experienced something similar? Any advice on how to approach Stake for a fair resolution would be greatly appreciated.

What resolution exactly are you looking for? Do you want them to refund the money you used on your second account? That is usually what people wanted when they post about failed self exculsion complaint.

[zeljko5]

@yhiaali3 — Exactly. There's no other explanation. Either the system doesn't exist, or it's completely disconnected from KYC. Could you share that thread you mentioned? I'd like to read it even if it didn't end well.


@noorman0 — I appreciate the point, but I think it actually works in my favour.

You're right that a determined addict might buy someone else's identity to keep gambling. But that's exactly what I didn't do. I used my own real name, my own real passport, my own real address. If I were the type of person willing to commit fraud to access a casino, I would have bought a fake ID and registered under a completely different identity — one that had no connection to any excluded account.

Instead, I used my own documents. The same file I had saved from my previous KYC submission. And it passed.

That's not criminal sophistication. That's the simplest prof of whether a self-exclusion system works — and it failed.


@acroman08 — To be straight — yes, I want my money back. Because they approved my KYC with the exact same ID and same photo of that ID that was already linked to a self-excluded account, accepted my deposits, and let me gamble. If their system had worked, I never would have gotten in. They failed to enforce it and now they're hiding behind a clause that was never designed for this situation.

[Rikafip]

You know you have self-excluded due to gambling addiction, but let's say you still wanted to gamble. You could have chosen other casinos where you never created an account. There are thousands of alternatives today. But you still chose Stake, why? It's because you knew you were pointing a finger at them. You just wanted to have a free rollover. Good luck with these shitty tactics. It does not work anymore.

All that still doesn't change the fact that (if what OP saying is true) Stake has a pretty shitty self-exclusion mechanism, that is designed to fail. I mean, how on earth can you pass KYC verification on the website you self-excluded yourself?

That just doesn't make any sense to me, if you actually want self-exclusion to work.

[zeljko5]

@Rikafip — Thank you for putting it so clearly. That's exactly the point I've been trying to make.

And I want to add one detail that makes this even harder to explain: I didn't just use the same document. I uploaded the exact same image file that I had used for KYC on the first account. Same photo, same file, same everything — just a different email address. And it passed.

The self-exclusion and KYC systems exist on the same platform. They both process identity documents. For one to approve what the other is supposed to block is not a minor bug — it's a fundamental failure of the responsible gambling infrastructure.

If this is how it works, it's not really self-exclusion. It's just an account block.

Here is a basic overview of the evidence. I'm not sharing everything publicly, but these four screenshots tell the core of the story.

Image 1 — My second account (hotmail) with verified email on Stake.
https://i.ibb.co/whp4DMgH/5.png

Image 2 — Statistics on that second account. Joined March 27, 2026. Total wagered: $36,523.81 across 4,589 bets. This happened after KYC was approved on an identity that was already self-excluded.
https://i.ibb.co/4ZVxJDr5/6.png

Image 3 — What happens when I try to log into my original account (outlook). Error: "You are not allowed to do this. Account is currently self excluded. Same details, same photo ID.
https://ibb.co/ymQXGZ3F

Image 4 — December 23, 2025. This is when the first account was created and photo i used for KYC, same file from first account.
https://i.ibb.co/RTbJQRLs/4.png

Short version: old account created December 2025, self-excluded. New account March 2026, same ID file, KYC approved, $36,523.81 wagered. Full documentation has been submitted through the appropriate channels.