Bitz Casino ignored self-exclusion & kept accepting deposits

[yuravish]

I am posting this case to document a serious failure of responsible gambling obligations by Bitz Casino.

This is not about losing money gambling.

This is about a casino that continued to accept deposits after being clearly informed about gambling addiction and a request to stop playing.

---

I. CORE ISSUE

The core issue is simple:

Bitz Casino accepted deposits after I explicitly disclosed gambling addiction and requested self-exclusion.

No effective restriction was applied.

---

II. KEY FACTS

* I clearly informed the casino that I have a gambling problem
* I requested permanent self-exclusion / account restriction
* The casino refused or failed to apply any meaningful protection
* The account remained fully active
* Deposits were accepted after this disclosure
* Promotions / normal activity continued
* The account could be reactivated quickly

This means there was no real protection at all.

---

III. WHY THIS MATTERS

Self-exclusion exists specifically for situations where a player loses control.

It is not supposed to depend on the same person repeatedly requesting protection after already admitting addiction.

If:

* self-exclusion can be ignored
* restrictions are not applied
* access remains available

then the system is not a protection mechanism.

---

IV. CONTRADICTION

The casino later demonstrated that account restrictions are technically possible.

This directly contradicts earlier behavior where no effective protection was applied.

If the casino can restrict accounts, it could have done so earlier.

It simply chose not to.

---

V. THIRD-PARTY REVIEW

Casino Guru reviewed this case and concluded:

* the self-exclusion request was valid
* the casino should have acted immediately

However, the casino refused to issue a refund.

https://casino.guru/complaints/bitz-casino-player-s-account-has-not-been-permanently
---

VI. CONCLUSION

This case is not about personal responsibility alone.

It is about a casino that:

* was informed about gambling addiction
* failed to act
* continued to accept deposits
* and only reacted after escalation

Responsible gambling measures that do not work when they are actually needed are meaningless.

---

If anyone has experience with Bitz or similar cases, I would appreciate input.

I will update this thread if there are any developments.

[AHOYBRAUSE]

Interesting case. Just flew over the casinoguru complaint and obviously they sited with you. One thing would be interesting to see though, the actual conversation between you and the chat support.
While they definitely should take immediate action and close the account and make it impossible to play, one thing stood out for me in their response:

" When the player requested a ban, the manager offered two available self-exclusion options; however, the player did not confirm either of them. Instead, the player accepted a bonus and continued playing."

So, did this actually happen? I mean I wouldn't blame you if they basicalled tamed you by giving you a bonus, we have all been there. And it doesn't change the fact that they should have acted instead of giving you a bonus or something.
Yet, it seems like you took it and didn't follow through with the self exclusion, or did you?

That's why it would be interesting to see/read what actually transpired there. At the moment it feels a bit like both sides are to blame, with the majority of course going towards the casino.

Edit: Just saw you had basically the same thread already. Why did you open a new one? 

[holydarkness]

I gave the whole convo on CG a read. OP, do you mind to give us as much clear details as you can, namely the supporting evidences, namely your conversation with your host and the self exclusion? I'll reach my contact on Bitz myself once I get a better and thorough understanding with firm ground.

[khaled0111]

I read the complaint on Casino Guru and there seems to be some contradiction in Bitz’s reresentative's reply. He said they offered you two self-exclusion offers to which you didn’t respond, but as far as I can see in OP, they did actually self-exclude your account for six months!
They are obviously trying to put the blame on you to win the case but even if you didn’t choose any of the options they offered, just by disclosing your gambling problems to them, makes them obligated/responsible to take some measures to protect you.

You have the right to ask for a refund but the most important thing is for them to fix their broken self-exclusion system.

[Zwei]

While they definitely should take immediate action and close the account and make it impossible to play, one thing stood out for me in their response:

" When the player requested a ban, the manager offered two available self-exclusion options; however, the player did not confirm either of them. Instead, the player accepted a bonus and continued playing."

actually you can't close your account on Bitz, i tried doing that a while back and they said their systme doesn't support it, and the best they could do is a 6 month self exclusion, which is the same thing they said on casino.guru.
and if remember correctly, you can even get the self exclusion lifted early if you wanted to play again.

it's a joke of a self exclusion system.

[khaled0111]

it's a joke of a self exclusion system.

Unfortunately, it’s a joke indeed, because how this self-exclusion system is going to help and protect vulnerable users (who can’t control themselves) if the exclusion can be lifted at any momemnt just by a simple request?
An effective self-exclusion system is supposed to enforce the exclusion firmly and prevent the user (and any alt-account he may create) from accessing the casino and from using its services for the whole exclusion period even if he begs for it to be lifted.

[yuravish]

Thanks for the responses, I appreciate the input.

Let me clarify the key point because I think this is where the misunderstanding happens.

The issue is NOT whether I accepted a bonus or continued playing.

The issue is what happened AFTER I clearly disclosed gambling addiction and requested self-exclusion.

That is the critical moment.

---

At that point:

* the casino was explicitly informed about gambling addiction
* a request to stop / self-exclude was made
* no effective restriction was applied
* the account remained fully active
* deposits were still accepted

---

Even if I continued playing after that, it does not change the core issue:

Self-exclusion exists specifically for situations where a player cannot control their behavior.

It is not supposed to rely on the same person making rational decisions after already admitting addiction.

---

Regarding the "two options" mentioned by the casino:

Even if options were presented, they were not effective protection.

From what I experienced:

* restrictions were not enforced properly
* access could still be regained
* promotions / normal activity continued

So the system did not function as a real safeguard.

---

Also, as some users mentioned here, Bitz does not offer a truly strict or irreversible self-exclusion system.

If self-exclusion can be reversed or bypassed easily, it is not meaningful protection.

---

The key question remains:

Why were deposits accepted after explicit addiction disclosure and request to stop?

That is the part that has not been properly addressed.

---

As requested, here are key screenshots to clarify the situation.

https://imgur.com/a/VXGlbLK

---

**1) Gambling addiction disclosure + request for permanent block**
In this message I clearly state that I am a gambling addict and request a lifetime block.

---

**2) Casino refuses permanent self-exclusion**
The casino explicitly states that lifetime blocking is not possible.

---

**3) Only limited restriction offered (max 6 months)**
Instead of protecting a vulnerable user, they offer temporary restriction only.

---

**4) Bonus offer instead of protection**
After all of the above, they continue offering bonuses.

---

**5) Continued promotional behavior**
More bonuses and engagement instead of stopping gambling activity.

---

**6) Account can be reactivated easily**
Even after blocking, they offer to unblock the account on request.
This completely defeats the purpose of self-exclusion.

---

Full case details:
https://casino.guru/complaints/bitz-casino-player-s-account-has-not-been-permanently

[holydarkness]

I see. Let me try to get a way to establish a line with someone from Bitz. I'm reaching out now and will try to have them in my contact and sit together to talk about this serious matter. I'd appreciate if you can wait a bit more patiently while I try to secure a string with them.

[Coyster]

This is an open-and-shut case to me, i am surprised that the casino still argues that there was no wrongdoing on their part. It must be obvious to everyone who read the conversation on CG that their self-exclusion system does not meet the standards expected in the gambling industry.

The smart thing to do here would be to pay this player their deposits made after the self-exclusion request was initiated and then fix their self-exclusion system. The system is designed to protect players, but the absence of permanent exclusion and the chance to lift the restriction at anytime does anything but protect the gambler.

[Zwei]

This is an open-and-shut case to me, i am surprised that the casino still argues that there was no wrongdoing on their part. It must be obvious to everyone who read the conversation on CG that their self-exclusion system does not meet the standards expected in the gambling industry.

not only that, but they also act as if they care, when they clearly don't. this what they said on casino.guru: "We take the issue of gambling addiction very seriously and always strive to provide support and assistance in such situations."

sorry, but which part of taking the issue seriously includes offering a bonus to tempt players to continue playing, or adding an extra step of two options instead of just banning someone outright when they ask for a permanent self exclusion.
not to mention, you can just change your mind and ask them to lift the self exclusion and they would just do it, how the fuck is that taking the issue of gambling addiction very seriously?

The smart thing to do here would be to pay this player their deposits made after the self-exclusion request was initiated and then fix their self-exclusion system. The system is designed to protect players, but the absence of permanent exclusion and the chance to lift the restriction at anytime does anything but protect the gambler.

i doubt they would do that, they deliberately designed their self exclusion system to be this way to make more money out of people who can't control themselves.

shame on you bitz.

[yuravish]

I appreciate everyone who took the time to review the case objectively.

At this point, I think the central issue is already clear:

* gambling addiction was explicitly disclosed
* permanent self-exclusion was requested
* effective protection was not applied
* deposits continued to be accepted
* promotional offers continued afterwards
* and the account could later be reactivated on request

That combination defeats the purpose of self-exclusion entirely.

I also appreciate those who pointed out that this is not simply about “personal responsibility”, but about whether a casino honors a direct request for protection once gambling addiction has been disclosed.

I am still open to resolving this matter constructively if Bitz is willing to engage seriously and address the deposits accepted after the self-exclusion request.

Thank you again to everyone contributing constructively to the discussion.

[Coyster]

I am still open to resolving this matter constructively if Bitz is willing to engage seriously and address the deposits accepted after the self-exclusion request.

I hope they come to their senses and resolve this, because it is quite obvious who is in the wrong here. Holydarkness was going to initiate contact with someone from their team, i'm just mentioning him here, in case there is any feedback to report, any?

i doubt they would do that, they deliberately designed their self exclusion system to be this way to make more money out of people who can't control themselves.

I second that as well. It cannot be that they do not know that their self-exclusion system sucks, so the reason they let it be that way has to be what you said and that does not do their reputation any good i must say.

[holydarkness]

I am still open to resolving this matter constructively if Bitz is willing to engage seriously and address the deposits accepted after the self-exclusion request.

I hope they come to their senses and resolve this, because it is quite obvious who is in the wrong here. Holydarkness was going to initiate contact with someone from their team, i'm just mentioning him here, in case there is any feedback to report, any?

i doubt they would do that, they deliberately designed their self exclusion system to be this way to make more money out of people who can't control themselves.

I second that as well. It cannot be that they do not know that their self-exclusion system sucks, so the reason they let it be that way has to be what you said and that does not do their reputation any good i must say.

Hi, sorry. Actually yeah, I do managed to be in touch with them and they do confirm that their self-exclusion is capped to 6 months. I wanted to know the broader context of the situation before bringing this topic to my contact's attention, so I read the CG's thread to be on the same page with Bitz. Especially as OP's email screenshot, [of which I think is the only substantiating evidence here?] they've explained to him that they do only offer 6 months.

So I went to CG and found this,



Then I kinda ghosted my contact [lol] because I was really got occupied by several threads, all about one specific forum member. Umm, anyway, after reading that CG thread, I can't help but wonder why CG immediately close the case following that reply --or more appropriately, despite the reply-- instead of trying to figure out further.

So, OP, did they do offer you two self exclusion options, of which you didn't confirm and thus they can't proceed?

[Coyster]

anyway, after reading that CG thread, I can't help but wonder why CG immediately close the case following that reply --or more appropriately, despite the reply-- instead of trying to figure out further.

That i am sure is because they believe that Bitz should simply offer permanent exclusion for players who make it known that they are having problems controlling themselves, and i cannot help but agree with them. The casino might also have a valid argument too, but offering only a 6 months exclusion (that can be cancelled at anytime), and on top of that offering two extra options for it seems a bit too much for a player with the problem.

So, OP, did they do offer you two self exclusion options, of which you didn't confirm and thus they can't proceed?

I am also curious to know what the options were.

[yuravish]

To clarify the confusion regarding the “6 month self-exclusion”:

The issue is not simply that Bitz offered a 6 month exclusion instead of a permanent one.

The real issue is that the exclusion was not actually enforced in any meaningful way.

The account could be manually reactivated upon request during the exclusion period. In fact, the account was manually reopened shortly after being blocked. That means the exclusion depended entirely on the same addicted player changing their mind and contacting support again.

In practice, that is not a protective self-exclusion system.

That is essentially a reversible pause.

A self-exclusion system designed for gambling addiction is supposed to work precisely when the player is unable to make rational decisions consistently.

If:

* the account can be reopened manually during the exclusion period
* support can override the restriction
* promotional communication continues
* and access can quickly be restored after a request

then the protection mechanism becomes ineffective.

That is why Casino Guru focused on whether effective protection was actually applied after gambling addiction was explicitly disclosed.

The core issue was never:
“Did Bitz technically offer a 6 month option?”

The issue is:
“Was there any real barrier preventing continued gambling after addiction was disclosed?”

Based on the evidence and the later manual reactivation capability, the answer is clearly no.

That is why this case became a responsible gambling dispute rather than a normal customer support disagreement.

[Coyster]

In fact, the account was manually reopened shortly after being blocked. That means the exclusion depended entirely on the same addicted player changing their mind and contacting support again.

It's getting a wee bit confusing here. Bitz claim that they offered you two options for self-exclusion, of which you didn't pick any and thus they could not proceed to close your account. But here you say the account was "manually reopened", meaning it was initially blocked.

Could you answer certain questions directly.

• Did Bitz offer you two options of self-exclusion?
• And was your account blocked by Bitz, but reopned by you?

Answering these would help everyone going forward. For the record, i still believe the casino is in the wrong here, as their self-exclusion system does not meet industry standard in the slightest way possible.

[yuravish]

To clarify the situation:

I requested permanent self-exclusion multiple times.
Bitz only offered:

* a short temporary cooldown, or
* a 6-month exclusion that could still be manually reversed through support.

That is already far below normal responsible gambling standards.

At one point, they blocked the account without my explicit agreement to those terms. I then stated clearly that I never consented to that specific exclusion setup, after which they reopened the account within about an hour.

This is the key issue:
the restriction was clearly manually controlled and easily reversible by support, which defeats the purpose of meaningful self-exclusion protection.

[Coyster]

* a short temporary cooldown, or
* a 6-month exclusion that could still be manually reversed through support.

It's nice we now have clarification on this. So this were the options offered by Bitz to you. Not good enough though, it is safer for the problem gambler if offers of self-exclusion have at least a minimum of 1 year, to a lifetime restriction, with the inability to reopen the account within the duration.

At one point, they blocked the account without my explicit agreement to those terms. I then stated clearly that I never consented to that specific exclusion setup, after which they reopened the account within about an hour.

Uhmm, so you can confirm that Bitz actually blocked your account and it was not manually reopened by yourself, but reopened based on your request to the casino. Why did you request they reopen it? Did they initiate the short, temporary cooldown option?

[holydarkness]

To clarify the situation:

I requested permanent self-exclusion multiple times.
Bitz only offered:

* a short temporary cooldown, or
* a 6-month exclusion that could still be manually reversed through support.

That is already far below normal responsible gambling standards.

At one point, they blocked the account without my explicit agreement to those terms. I then stated clearly that I never consented to that specific exclusion setup, after which they reopened the account within about an hour.

This is the key issue:
the restriction was clearly manually controlled and easily reversible by support, which defeats the purpose of meaningful self-exclusion protection.

For the record, I am not doubting you. In fact, I believe to a more than 90% certainty that I dare to take your words of those two terms at face-value. But... this section works on evidence, and uhh, if you can help me procure that evidence, I might be able to have a sit with my contact and discuss this thoroughly?

[rat03gopoh]

Why did you request they reopen it? Did they initiate the short, temporary cooldown option?

OP didn't request reopening, support canceled manually without needing a request because OP was deemed not to have specified the exception option until timeout.

I saw some similar reports against other casinos, it seems like self-exclusion is never effective. I think you have to make a T&C violation to be denied playing at any casino.