CASINO500 regarding a severe Responsible Gambling breach on my account

[Bohdanosa]

What happened: I am reaching out regarding a severe Responsible Gambling breach on my account: user00f4be4e

On 14 Mar 2025, I explicitly notified the casino500 team of my gambling addiction and requested permanent closure / self-exclusion. Support(Taniq) confirmed that my account is permanently blocked. However, on October 15, 500 Casino unblocked my account.

Since the unblocking, 5 days ago (21.10.2026) I deposited some funds and lost  in total 2,800 USDT. Under Responsible Gambling regulations and standards, an account closed due to gambling addiction must never be reopened.

I am requesting a full refund of 2,800 USDT losses after the account was unblocked.  
I reached out to customer service, and they declined my request (screenshot attached) A player’s request to regain access does not void a self-exclusion triggered by gambling addiction. They have a strict duty of care: unblocking an account closed due to addiction regardless of whether the player asked for it is a severe regulatory violation.   By processing that reopening, 500 Casino failed its regulatory obligations, making the platform directly liable for the resulting 2,800 USDT loss. This response will be added immediately as evidence to the formal complaints being submitted to mediators and licensing authority

Scammers Profile Link: https://csgo500.com/

Reference Link:
Amount Scammed: 2800 USD
Payment Method: USDC
Proof of Payment: https://prnt.sc/rb3UuJjm1znq
PM/Chat Logs: https://prnt.sc/W0xuB9uLrM8D https://prnt.sc/Fk4K2VJPss8A  

[rohang]

You mention 21.10.2026 but in screenshot the chat rep says 2025, which one is sit ? one of them must be a typo

It is indeed a big mistake on their part, you even mentioned u were gambling addicted so your account should have never been reopened.

If it was 2025 why did you wait one year ?

I think their rep here userU is pretty active here.

[Bohdanosa]

To clarify the timeline for everyone and clear up any confusion regarding the dates: both dates are accurate, and there is no typo.

    October 15, 2025: 500 Casino improperly unblocked my account after I asked to regain access, ignoring my explicit prior declaration of gambling addiction.

    October 21, 2026 (5–6 days ago): I made my first deposit on the account since the original closure. The account had remained improperly unblocked this entire time, but I did not deposit or gamble on it until 5–6 days ago.

    Why this is NOT a cold case: I am not reporting a financial loss from 2025. The entire 2,800 USDT loss occurred 5 days ago within a single window starting October 21, 2026.

Under standard Responsible Gambling rules, a self-exclusion for gambling addiction is permanent and cannot be voided, even if the player asks to come back. The casino left a self-excluded account open for a year, and when a relapse occurred 5 days ago, it directly resulted in a 2,800 USDT loss

[rohang]

What happened: I am reaching out regarding a severe Responsible Gambling breach on my account: user00f4be4e

On 14 Mar 2025, I explicitly notified the casino500 team of my gambling addiction and requested permanent closure / self-exclusion. Support(Taniq) confirmed that my account is permanently blocked. However, on October 15, 500 Casino unblocked my account.

Since the unblocking, 5 days ago (21.10.2026) I deposited some funds and lost  in total 2,800 USDT. Under Responsible Gambling regulations and standards, an account closed due to gambling addiction must never be reopened.

I am requesting a full refund of 2,800 USDT losses after the account was unblocked.  
I reached out to customer service, and they declined my request (screenshot attached) A player’s request to regain access does not void a self-exclusion triggered by gambling addiction. They have a strict duty of care: unblocking an account closed due to addiction regardless of whether the player asked for it is a severe regulatory violation.   By processing that reopening, 500 Casino failed its regulatory obligations, making the platform directly liable for the resulting 2,800 USDT loss. This response will be added immediately as evidence to the formal complaints being submitted to mediators and licensing authority

Scammers Profile Link: https://csgo500.com/

Reference Link:
Amount Scammed: 2800 USD
Payment Method: USDC
Proof of Payment: https://prnt.sc/rb3UuJjm1znq
PM/Chat Logs: https://prnt.sc/W0xuB9uLrM8D https://prnt.sc/Fk4K2VJPss8A  

Honestly this is tricky.

You said 'i am gamble addicted' but you did not specify how long you wanted the exclusion for

It seems 500casino default is 6 months which is what they did after which it was removed, upon request.

Some casinos insta ban people on hearing 'addicted' but some dont. Unless there is a requirement by their license i dont think U can get anything here.

Do some research about the license/legal requirements when a player mentions addiction, then move forward if you indeed do find something

[Bohdanosa]

You are fundamentally conflating a standard temporary cool-off period with a self-exclusion triggered by an explicit declaration of gambling addiction.

Under standard Responsible Gambling frameworks, when a player explicitly states they have a gambling addiction, self-exclusion is permanent. It does not automatically expire after 6 months, nor does a cooling-off period make it safe to lift.

 A player suffering from addiction asking to regain access is a known symptom of problem gambling. It is the operator's regulatory duty of care to deny that request. Approving an unban request for a self-identified addict—regardless of whether 6 days or 6 months have passed is the exact Responsible Gambling breach at issue.

The failure occurred when 500 Casino improperly approved the unblock, and the resulting financial harm occurred 5–6 days ago (October 21–23, 2026) when 2,800 USDT was deposited and lost during a relapse.


The side-by-side screenshot above provides definitive proof of 500 Casino's failure in its duty of care. My message: "I gamble addicted please block my account"   500 Casino Support response: "In light of what you just said and for your well being we have now permanently banned your account."   500 Casino's system explicitly logged that the closure was due to gambling addiction and stated the account was permanently banned. 
Then 500 Casino Support (PowerSl1de): Admits that on October 15, 2025, the casino reopened the account simply because I sent an email asking to regain access.   Why this is a direct breach: Under standard Responsible Gambling protocols , a player’s request can NEVER void a self-exclusion triggered by gambling addiction. Compulsive gambling drives players to request unbans; it is the casino's regulatory duty to reject those requests to protect the player.   Recent Financial Loss (October 21–23, 2026):Leaving this addiction-flagged account unblocked directly led to a relapse 5–6 days ago, resulting in a net loss of 2,800 USDT.
500 Casino acknowledged a permanent ban for gambling addiction, improperly unblocked it upon player request, and allowed a 2,800 USDT loss to occur 5 days ago.

[UserU]

Hi Bohdanosa,

As @rohang mentioned along with the screenshots, PowerSl1de stated that you did make a request for your account's self-exclusion to be lifted on 15th October 2025, which is more than 6 months since your request on 14th March 2025.

Even PS also indicated that you explicitly confirmed for them to unlock your account. I mean, the casino can only do so much to control one's addiction; it boils down to the player's willpower. As you willingly made the deposit, the action pretty much speaks for itself.

On the flipside, if we do not unban the account despite multiple pleas and confirmations, we get blamed for confiscating/ stealing the funds.

Perhaps if you can include the screenshot of the unban request, it would paint a better picture for all of us.

You mention 21.10.2026 but in screenshot the chat rep says 2025, which one is sit ? one of them must be a typo

From the first screenshot with Taniq, the timestamp above the "Rate your conversation" shows 1y which was ~1 year ago.

Then from the second screenshot with PowerSl1de, the timestamp shows 2d, which is 2 days ago.

[Bohdanosa]

Yes, I fully acknowledge that I requested the unblock and confirmed it. That is the core issue here.

Here is why 500 Casino's position is regulatory and ethically flawed:

 Claiming that safety "boils down to the player's willpower" completely invalidates the purpose of Responsible Gambling protocols. Self-exclusion frameworks exist specifically because individuals suffering from gambling addiction experience severe lapses in impulse control and will attempt to regain access during a relapse. Relying on an addict's willpower while removing their safety net is a direct failure of duty of care.
When I explicitly stated "I gamble addicted", Support (Taniq) responded: "In light of what you just said and for your well being we have now permanently banned your account." Under established iGaming regulatory standards , a self-exclusion triggered by explicit problem gambling/addiction is permanent and irrevocable. An operator cannot legally or ethically accept an unban request from a self-declared addict.

500 Casino identified the addiction, confirmed a permanent ban, and then breached Responsible Gambling standards by honoring an unban request from a vulnerable player. Because 500 Casino failed to maintain this self-exclusion, the platform is directly responsible for the 2,800 USDT deposited and lost when the account was improperly restored.

[Bohdanosa]

Also when I experienced a relapse, I reached out to multiple other casinos where I had previously self-excluded, asking to have my accounts unblocked. Every single other casino strictly REFUSED my request, citing my prior declaration of gambling addiction. 500 Casino was the only platform that failed to enforce the exclusion and unblocked my account.
For example: https://prnt.sc/osG2AVg5a-WY
For the other casinos that correctly rejected my request, those conversations took place via live chat

P.S When my account was permanently closed for gambling addiction in March 2025, my balance was $0 USDT. When I emailed to request the unblock in October 2025, my balance was still $0 USDT.   Nothing Was Trapped or Confiscated. There were zero funds in the account to withhold, seize, or "confiscate." How could anyone accuse a casino of "stealing funds" from an account containing $0?  Denying an unban request on an empty, addiction-flagged account does not trap existing money it simply prevents the player from depositing new money during a relaps

[Zwei]

I am requesting a full refund of 2,800 USDT losses after the account was unblocked.

let me ask you this, would you have made this scam accusation if you did not lose?
would you have refunded your profits to 500.casino because you are addicted and should not be allowed to gamble?

while their self-exclusion system does have room for improvement, i mean, a self-excluded player should not be able to unlock their account if they asked for a permanent ban. but in your screenshot, you didn't specify you wanted that. you only said "i'm gambling addicted please block my account", which i assume is why you were able to unblock your account after 6 months. so imo, you only have yourself to blame.

p.s. next time just say you are 12 or specifically ask for a permanent ban. if any casino unlocks your account after that, then it's 100% on them.

On the flipside, if we do not unban the account despite multiple pleas and confirmations, we get blamed for confiscating/ stealing the funds.

do withdrawals also get blocked if a self-exclusion is requested? shouldn't only playing and depositing get blocked, and allow the player to withdraw their remaining funds?

[Bohdanosa]

I am requesting a full refund of 2,800 USDT losses after the account was unblocked.

let me ask you this, would you have made this scam accusation if you did not lose?
would you have refunded your profits to 500.casino because you are addicted and should not be allowed to gamble?

while their self-exclusion system does have room for improvement, i mean, a self-excluded player should not be able to unlock their account if they asked for a permanent ban. but in your screenshot, you didn't specify you wanted that. you only said "i'm gambling addicted please block my account", which i assume is why you were able to unblock your account after 6 months. so imo, you only have yourself to blame.

p.s. next time just say you are 12 or specifically ask for a permanent ban. if any casino unlocks your account after that, then it's 100% on them.

On the flipside, if we do not unban the account despite multiple pleas and confirmations, we get blamed for confiscating/ stealing the funds.

do withdrawals also get blocked if a self-exclusion is requested? shouldn't only playing and depositing get blocked, and allow the player to withdraw their remaining funds?

You claim I didn't ask for a permanent ban. Please re-read the chat transcript screenshot carefully. My message: "I gamble addicted please block my account"   Support (Taniq) response: "In light of what you just said and for your well being we have now permanently banned your account."   500 Casino's own support explicitly classified and confirmed it as a permanent ban due to problem gambling. There was zero ambiguity.   The "Would you refund if you won?" This argument ignores how iGaming regulatory liability works. When a casino breaches a self-exclusion for gambling addiction, the agreement to allow wagers is invalid from the moment the deposit is accepted.   Under regulatory standards, operators are strictly forbidden from accepting deposits from self-excluded addicts. When they fail to enforce this, they are legally and ethically required to refund all deposited funds accepted during the breach.   An operator's duty of care exists to block the deposit from happening in the first place, not to evaluate win/loss outcomes after failing their RG obligations.  Self-exclusion frameworks exist specifically because individuals suffering from addiction experience severe lapses in impulse control during a relapse. Blaming an addict for requesting an unban while ignoring the casino's failure to maintain the permanent ban they promised completely defeats the entire purpose of RG protections. 

[Bohdanosa]

Please note, I accepted my Initial $5,000 USDT Loss back in March 2025, after losing $5,000 USDT on 500 Casino, I did not complain, demand a refund, or accuse anyone of wrongdoing. I took responsibility for my actions, admitted my addiction, and took the necessary step to permanently block my account to protect myself from further harm.   This is not an exploitative claim, I accepted that $5,000 loss without dispute. I am only disputing the $2,800 USDT loss from 5 days ago, a loss that occurred strictly because 500 Casino breached Responsible Gambling protocols and reopened an addiction-flagged account.

Screenshot of 5000$ net loss  https://prnt.sc/IGufKy4q6NSk

[Zwei]

You claim I didn't ask for a permanent ban. Please re-read the chat transcript screenshot carefully. My message: "I gamble addicted please block my account"   Support (Taniq) response: "In light of what you just said and for your well being we have now permanently banned your account."   500 Casino's own support explicitly classified and confirmed it as a permanent ban due to problem gambling. There was zero ambiguity.

i did read the chat transcript again, and they did block your account, but in the same support response, they also said "please note that your account will not be unlocked for at least 6 months even if you request it".
i think that is selfexplanatory that the block was not in fact permanent, and you knew you could get it unlocked after 6 months.

The "Would you refund if you won?" This argument ignores how iGaming regulatory liability works. When a casino breaches a self-exclusion for gambling addiction, the agreement to allow wagers is invalid from the moment the deposit is accepted.   Under regulatory standards, operators are strictly forbidden from accepting deposits from self-excluded addicts. When they fail to enforce this, they are legally and ethically required to refund all deposited funds accepted during the breach.   An operator's duty of care exists to block the deposit from happening in the first place, not to evaluate win/loss outcomes after failing their RG obligations.  Self-exclusion frameworks exist specifically because individuals suffering from addiction experience severe lapses in impulse control during a relapse.

that's a lot of words to avoid answering my hypothetical question, especially since the account was unbanned ~1 year ago, and you made 3 withdrawals where you were in profit before you eventually lost.

I am only disputing the $2,800 USDT loss from 5 days ago, a loss that occurred strictly because 500 Casino breached Responsible Gambling protocols and reopened an addiction-flagged account.

i honestly do not want to turn this into an argument about technicalities, and my opinion on this may be wrong. so i would suggest you file a complaint with a third party ADR like casino.guru and have them make a verdict on your case: https://casino.guru/complaints/in_progress

[UserU]

Please note, I accepted my Initial $5,000 USDT Loss back in March 2025, after losing $5,000 USDT on 500 Casino, I did not complain, demand a refund, or accuse anyone of wrongdoing. I took responsibility for my actions, admitted my addiction, and took the necessary step to permanently block my account to protect myself from further harm.   This is not an exploitative claim, I accepted that $5,000 loss without dispute. I am only disputing the $2,800 USDT loss from 5 days ago, a loss that occurred strictly because 500 Casino breached Responsible Gambling protocols and reopened an addiction-flagged account.

Can you attach the screenshot of the request via email that you sent to our Support team previously? Full flow from the request to the unban.

Let's have all evidences laid out to make things clearer for all parties.

Not pointing fingers here, but what @Zwei mentioned also has its weight.

do withdrawals also get blocked if a self-exclusion is requested? shouldn't only playing and depositing get blocked, and allow the player to withdraw their remaining funds?

Nope, players can only withdraw. They won't get to deposit, play or claim any rewards.

Can I remove my self-exclusion?

The self-exclusion feature is there to protect you and it's meant to force you away from 500 Casino, so don't click it unless you really want to take a break.

We won't interfere with self-exclusions set by users, no matter what, not even if you change your mind.

Keep in mind that while in self-exclusion, you can still spend your balance normally if you want to withdraw. You won't be able to deposit, play or collect any rewards.

Source: https://help.500.casino/en/articles/5925078-can-i-remove-my-self-exclusion

[Bohdanosa]

As I mentioned above,  I fully acknowledge that I requested the unblock and confirmed it. As requested, here is the full email thread from October 15, 2025, between myself and 500 Casino Support (Hellboy).
screenshot - https://prnt.sc/Qh8PlyB9uYnA
 This email exchange actually proves 500 Casino’s internal failure and regulatory breach rather than defending it.
1. 500 Casino Mismanaged an Addiction Ban as a "6-Month Break". In the email, Hellboy writes: "We can confirm that the minimum self-exclusion period of six months has passed, and your request is now eligible for review."   This reveals the root cause of the breach.   When I originally self-excluded in March 2025, I explicitly declared: "I gamble addicted please block my account." Support (Taniq) acknowledged this and explicitly stated: "we have now permanently banned your account."   A self-exclusion triggered by an explicit declaration of gambling addiction is permanent under international Responsible Gambling (RG) standards. It does not expire after 6 months.   500 Casino’s system/support improperly misclassified a permanent addiction ban as a routine 6-month temporary cool-off, leading Hellboy to treat an addict's unban request as a standard procedure.  

2. 500 Casino Direct Violates Its Own FAQ Policy. You quoted 500 Casino's official Help Center policy:"The self-exclusion feature is there to protect you... We won't interfere with self-exclusions set by users, no matter what, not even if you change your mind."This quote directly refutes 500 Casino's defense. 500 Casino’s own published policy explicitly promises that the casino will NEVER lift a self-exclusion, even if the user changes their mind.Yet, as seen in the attached email, the moment I changed my mind during a relapse, Hellboy unlocked the account within 1 minute of my reply.   500 Casino breached both international Responsible Gambling standards and their own stated terms by lifting the exclusion.

 500 Casino logged an addiction closure as a temporary break, ignored its own policy about not lifting self-exclusions when a player changes their mind, and unblocked the account which directly enabled the 2,800 USDT loss 5 days ago.

A standard temporary self-exclusion is NOT the same as an explicit gambling addiction declaration.
Declaring "I gamble addicted" requires a permanent lifetime ban under Responsible Gambling standards, not a temporary 6-month break. Support (Taniq) explicitly confirmed a permanent ban, but 500 Casino improperly logged it as a routine 6-month cool-off and unblocked it upon request. 500 Casino's published FAQ states they will never lift a self-exclusion even if a player changes their mind. Unblocking me breached both international regulations and their own terms. My account balance was $0 when closed. Unblocking it didn't release trapped funds—it only enabled a relapse, resulting in a 2,800 USDT loss

An addict's request during a relapse can never void a permanent self-exclusion.

[Bohdanosa]

There is already a direct, resolved precedent on Casino Guru regarding 500 Casino failing Responsible Gambling obligations - https://casino.guru/complaints/500-casino-player-s-self-exclusion-request-was-ignored

In that case:

 The casino initially tried to refuse a refund using the exact same argument ("we don't refund losing bets"), but ultimately admitted fault for Responsible Gambling missteps and issued a full refund.

 In that complaint, the dispute involved secondary emails and account identification issues. In my situation, there are zero technicalities: I used one single, fully verified account.

500 Casino explicitly logged my addiction ban on my primary account, improperly unblocked it, and permitted a 2,800 USDT loss. As already established by Casino Guru in previous cases against 500 Casino, failing a self-exclusion duty of care requires a full refund of the disputed losses.

[UserU]

As I mentioned above,  I fully acknowledge that I requested the unblock and confirmed it. As requested, here is the full email thread from October 15, 2025, between myself and 500 Casino Support (Hellboy).
screenshot - https://prnt.sc/Qh8PlyB9uYnA
 This email exchange actually proves 500 Casino’s internal failure and regulatory breach rather than defending it.
1. 500 Casino Mismanaged an Addiction Ban as a "6-Month Break". In the email, Hellboy writes: "We can confirm that the minimum self-exclusion period of six months has passed, and your request is now eligible for review."   This reveals the root cause of the breach.   When I originally self-excluded in March 2025, I explicitly declared: "I gamble addicted please block my account." Support (Taniq) acknowledged this and explicitly stated: "we have now permanently banned your account."   A self-exclusion triggered by an explicit declaration of gambling addiction is permanent under international Responsible Gambling (RG) standards. It does not expire after 6 months.   500 Casino’s system/support improperly misclassified a permanent addiction ban as a routine 6-month temporary cool-off, leading Hellboy to treat an addict's unban request as a standard procedure.  

2. 500 Casino Direct Violates Its Own FAQ Policy. You quoted 500 Casino's official Help Center policy:"The self-exclusion feature is there to protect you... We won't interfere with self-exclusions set by users, no matter what, not even if you change your mind."This quote directly refutes 500 Casino's defense. 500 Casino’s own published policy explicitly promises that the casino will NEVER lift a self-exclusion, even if the user changes their mind.Yet, as seen in the attached email, the moment I changed my mind during a relapse, Hellboy unlocked the account within 1 minute of my reply.   500 Casino breached both international Responsible Gambling standards and their own stated terms by lifting the exclusion.

 500 Casino logged an addiction closure as a temporary break, ignored its own policy about not lifting self-exclusions when a player changes their mind, and unblocked the account which directly enabled the 2,800 USDT loss 5 days ago.

A standard temporary self-exclusion is NOT the same as an explicit gambling addiction declaration.
Declaring "I gamble addicted" requires a permanent lifetime ban under Responsible Gambling standards, not a temporary 6-month break. Support (Taniq) explicitly confirmed a permanent ban, but 500 Casino improperly logged it as a routine 6-month cool-off and unblocked it upon request. 500 Casino's published FAQ states they will never lift a self-exclusion even if a player changes their mind. Unblocking me breached both international regulations and their own terms. My account balance was $0 when closed. Unblocking it didn't release trapped funds—it only enabled a relapse, resulting in a 2,800 USDT loss

An addict's request during a relapse can never void a permanent self-exclusion.

Thanks for uploading it, including it as a reference.

Now going back to your original post, you requested for a ban. Not permanent, rather a "Please ban/ block me, I'm addicted and need to take a break".



So for Taniq's response, they said the ban is permanent, but the user is allowed to request for a review. Meaning that until 6 months have passed, he or she remains banned and Support will not entertain any request to reverse the decision.

It was clearly mentioned there, not "Your account is permanently banned as requested by you and fully agreed upon"

Now if you insisted on being permbanned, you should have instructed Taniq to do so, but you didn't.

Then 6 months 2 days after the ban, you reached out to Hellboy and request him to unban. They even double-confirmed with you that you are solely responsible before he proceeded:

"Before proceeding, we kindly ask you to confirm that you are fully in control of your decision and certain about your intention to regain access to your account"



And you even agreed to it:

"Yes, I am sure that I want to regain access to my account"

Hence, the casino has done its due diligence. We have already respected what the user (i.e. you) requested within our own policies.

We rest our case.

[Bohdanosa]

Asking a self-declared gambling addict "Are you sure?" and accepting a "Yes" during a relapse is the exact opposite of "due diligence" it is a complete failure of Responsible Gambling duty of care.   
 Compulsive gambling is a recognized impulse-control disorder. An addict in a relapse state will always confirm they want access restored. Relying on a vulnerable player's consent to lift a ban triggered by an explicit addiction declaration ("I gamble addicted") invalidates the entire concept of Responsible Gambling protection.
 Setting a minimum mandatory lock period of "at least 6 months" does not mean an addiction ban automatically turns into a routine unblock upon request. An explicit declaration of addiction requires a permanent, non-reversible exclusion under regulatory frameworks.   
Since 500 Casino officially maintains that asking an addict for confirmation satisfies its legal and ethical duties, continuing this forum debate is unnecessary.   This entire thread including chat logs, deposit records from 5 days ago, email exchanges, and 500 Casino’s admissions of unblocking an addiction-flagged account based on player confirmation will be submitted directly to Casino Guru and the licensing authority / ADR for formal adjudication.   We will let the gaming regulators judge whether asking a self-declared addict if they are "sure" excuses an operator from its regulatory duty of care