Cloudbet Casino - Casino ignores player's self-exclusion requests.

Despite multiple requests(5) for account termination and a history of self-exclusion, Cloudbet has failed to comply with these requests. This has resulted in substantial financial losses on my part, totaling over $110,000+ since the initial account closure request was made and acknowledged by Cloudbet support.

To provide some context, I have made repeated attempts to self-exclude from Cloudbet's platform, a clear indication of my desire to address potential gambling-related issues. However, despite these self-exclusion attempts firm requests for account closure, Cloudbet has not only disregarded my pleas but has also allowed me to deposit significant sums of money into the account.

I believe it is my right to have these funds refunded, starting from the date of my initial account closure request. 

Dear fifi22221,

Thank you very much for submitting your complaint. I’m sorry to hear about your problem. 

Based on the screenshots you've shared, it appears that you typically utilize the self-exclusion request as a means to obtain additional bonuses, without explicitly stating any specific grounds for blocking your account. Additionally, I haven't come across any supporting evidence indicating that you informed the casino about your gambling issues or conveyed concerns related to gambling addiction.

When applying for the self-exclusion, state clearly the reason why you want your account to be deactivated and specify the time period. Also, email "Subject" should be clearly marked and easily recognizable as casino support receives many requests per day hence, if it’s visibly marked you stand a better chance to have your request granted as soon as possible. 

Example:

Email subject: Self-exclusion

Player’s info:

First name:

Last name:

DOB:

Casino login:

Email address:

"Greetings Cloudbet Casino,

I’m writing to inform you that I wish to exclude immediately from this casino and from receiving any gambling-related marketing material for a minimum period of xxx months/years (lifetime).

The reason that preceded my decision is xxx

I acknowledge that I will not be allowed to rescind my self-exclusion during this period and self-exclusion cannot be lifted before the end of the agreed period."

Please send another email to support@cloudbet.com (you can CC me at petronela.k@casino.guru in the copy) and keep me informed about any further developments. If there is any option for an alternative contact such as live chat or WhatsApp, please try that too and save screenshots of the relevant communication.

Thank you in advance.

Best regards,

Petronela

Dear Petronela,

Thank you for your response and your suggestions for self-exclusion requests. I understand the importance of clearly stating the reason for self-exclusion and appreciate your advice on how to structure such requests effectively. However, I'd like to address a few key points regarding my situation:

Responsible Gaming: While I may not have explicitly mentioned "responsible gaming" as the reason for account closure in my initial requests, my multiple self-exclusion attempts should have raised concern. These were not mere attempts to gain bonuses but rather clear signs of my struggle with gambling addiction. The casino had a responsibility to recognize these patterns and take appropriate action, especially given my history of self-exclusion.

Account Closure Requests: It's essential to emphasize that I've made multiple requests for account closure, not just self-exclusion. Even without specifying the exact reason, the act of requesting an account closure should be taken seriously. Ignoring these repeated requests for over five times is a significant oversight, and it has led to substantial financial losses, exceeding $100,000.

Ineffective Communication: I want to highlight the ineffectiveness of communication with Cloudbet's support during this process. Despite my efforts, I felt that my concerns were not adequately addressed. There was a dismissive attitude and a lack of understanding of the gravity of the situation, which only added to my frustration.

Continued Gambling After Account Closure Request: Even after my last account closure request on October 10th, 2021, I took the initiative to self-exclude directly through the Cloudbet website as my requests for account closure were consistently ignored. This further demonstrates my commitment to addressing my gambling issues.

I believe that these points highlight the severity of the situation and the casino's failure to adhere to responsible gaming measures and customer support standards. The multiple self-exclusion attempts and account closure requests should have prompted a more proactive response from the casino.

In addition to the points mentioned above, I would like to draw your attention to the evidence I've provided. I have uploaded screenshots of the four self-exclusion requests, the account closure request, and Cloudbet's responses, which clearly acknowledge the account closure requests and even request feedback. However, despite acknowledging these requests, the casino did not proceed to close my account. This failure to act on the account closure requests, which totaled five in all, has had severe consequences, both financially and psychologically, since the first request was made. The evidence I've provided underscores the urgency and validity of my concerns.

Thank you for your attention, and I look forward to resolving this matter satisfactorily.

However, I must express my disappointment with the initial assumption in your message. It suggests a predisposition to side with operators rather than objectively assess the situation. To clarify, I have never utilized self-exclusion requests as a means to obtain additional bonuses, nor have I ever availed myself of any bonuses offered by Cloudbet.

It's essential to emphasize that my requests for self-exclusion and account closure were not related to obtaining bonuses but were made with genuine concerns regarding responsible gaming. Despite the lack of specific reasons mentioned in these requests, it should be noted that my primary request was the closure of my account.

Moreover, the suggestion to clearly state reasons for self-exclusion in an email subject is somewhat misleading. When users submit self-exclusion requests, the focus should primarily be on promptly addressing their concerns rather than navigating email subject lines. Cloudbet's support team should be equipped to recognize and act on self-exclusion requests swiftly, especially when they involve multiple requests over time.

My intent in highlighting these concerns is not to undermine your role but to foster an environment where legitimate user concerns are addressed with the utmost seriousness and impartiality.

To provide further clarity and substantiate my claims, I have attached the complete history of self-exclusion requests made on Cloudbet. This includes four self-exclusion requests, each made with a sincere intention to address my gambling behavior responsibly. The records of these requests are well-documented, and they stand as evidence of my commitment to self-exclusion.

Additionally, I have included Cloudbet's Self-Exclusion Privacy Policy, which is seemingly contradictory. While the confirmation email I received stated that my account would be reactivated automatically upon the expiration of the self-exclusion period, the privacy policy suggests that reactivation requires contacting customer service. This inconsistency has caused confusion and raised concerns regarding the actual process of self-exclusion and account reactivation.

Furthermore, I have attached a conversation with a Cloudbet support agent who explicitly confirmed that my account was closed upon my first account closure request. This confirmation from a representative of Cloudbet's support team is in direct contrast to the continued access to my account that I experienced. This inconsistency in communication has added to the frustration of this situation.

Additionally, it is important to emphasize a significant contradiction within Cloudbet's communications. In the self-exclusion confirmation email attached I received upon self-exclusion, Cloudbet provided responsible gaming instructions, advising me to visit Gamble Aware for information, advice, and support to help people make informed decisions about gambling. This demonstrates Cloudbet's awareness of player's problematic gambling behavior.

"In the meantime, we recommend you visit Gamble Aware (https://www.begambleaware.org). Gamble Aware provide information, advice and support to help people make informed decisions about gambling."

It's important to note that this information was included in all 4 self-exclusions confirmation emails.

Lastly, there is a discrepancy between the confirmation email regarding self-exclusion and the Cloudbet policy , which state, "We can confirm that you have now self-excluded your account. Once the timeframe selected has expired, you will need to contact Customer Service in order to re-open your account." The confirmation email implies that reactivating my account requires contacting Customer Service, which was not adhered to.

In light of this additional evidence and the points highlighted, I kindly request that you reconsider the outcome of my dispute with Cloudbet. It is clear that I took responsible actions to address my gambling issues, and Cloudbet's contradictory communications further support my case.

I appreciate your attention to this matter and look forward to a fair and just resolution.

Player's screenshots from the first reply:

I concur that the optimal resolution would involve a permanent account block, preventing any further gambling activity. However, your initial request did not specify the gambling issue as the basis for your decision. Phrases like "close my account for no reason" or "if I don't receive a cashback bonus, close my account I'll take my money elsewhere" do not indicate compulsive behavior.

If we had concrete evidence that you had clearly communicated your gambling problem to the casino, we would be eager to assist. Unfortunately, we have not received any such evidence.

Could you please advise if you sent a self-exclusion request as suggested in my last reply and stated gambling problem to finally have your account blocked permanently?

Dear fifi22221,

We are extending the timer by 7 days. Please, be aware that in case you fail to respond in the given time frame or don’t require any further assistance, we will reject the complaint.

I appreciate your prompt response to my submitted complaint regarding Cloudbet. I would like to address your concerns and provide further clarification on the issue.

While it is true that my initial requests for account closure did not explicitly mention gambling issues, it's essential to highlight that Cloudbet acknowledged these closure requests and even responded to them. Their responses indicated an understanding that I wished to terminate my account. Despite this acknowledgment, Cloudbet did not take the necessary steps to close my account permanently.

I understand the importance of clear communication, and I appreciate your emphasis on providing specific reasons for account closure. However, the fact remains that Cloudbet was aware of my intention to close the account, as evidenced by their responses to my closure requests.

Moreover, I would like to draw your attention to the subsequent self-exclusion attempts I made directly through Cloudbet's website, which followed their refusal to close the account. These self-exclusions clearly demonstrate my awareness of gambling-related concerns and my proactive efforts to address them.

In light of the evidence presented, I would like to reiterate that Cloudbet's failure to honor multiple closure requests, coupled with my self-exclusion attempts, underscores the existence of problematic gambling behavior.

Your response indicated an agreement that the optimal resolution involves a permanent account block to prevent further gambling activity. I wholeheartedly agree with this assessment. However, the critical point here is that this action should have been taken without the necessity for specifying a reason related to gambling issues.

By acknowledging my account closure requests, Cloudbet implicitly understood my intention to discontinue gambling activities on their platform. This acknowledgment alone should have triggered the implementation of a permanent account block, irrespective of the specific reason mentioned in the request. The absence of a clear mention of gambling issues should not be a barrier to taking responsible and necessary action to curb potential harm.

The core of the matter lies in Cloudbet's failure to follow through on their acknowledgment of my closure requests. This oversight has not only led to continued gambling activity but also to significant financial and emotional consequences.

I trust that, in reconsidering the case, you will emphasize the urgency of implementing a permanent account block as the optimal resolution. This action aligns with responsible gaming practices and provides a safeguard against further harm.

Historically, Cloudbet allowed users to manage their responsible gaming actions directly through the platform's website. This included self-exclusions, cool-off periods, and permanent account closures, providing users with a straightforward and efficient process to take control of their gambling activities.

However, a policy change has added an unnecessary layer to this process, requiring users to contact support to close their accounts. This change not only complicates the user experience but also introduces inefficiencies that can be detrimental, particularly in urgent situations where prompt action is necessary.

In my specific case, the new policy proved ineffective. Despite my repeated requests for account closure as per the updated procedure, the account remained accessible, leading to continued gambling activities and subsequent financial losses.

This change in policy is not only a step backward in terms of user convenience but also poses a serious risk to individuals seeking responsible gaming measures. The added requirement to contact support introduces delays and potential communication barriers, hindering users from promptly implementing necessary restrictions.

I urge you to consider the implications of this policy change in the context of responsible gaming and user protection. The primary objective of any policy should be to facilitate user well-being, and in this case, the modification appears to deviate from that principle.

The policy change at Cloudbet, requiring users to contact support for account closures, seems to introduce unnecessary delays and complications. This alteration may provide an avenue for the platform to exert more control over the process, potentially leading to delays in responding to account closure requests and cool-off periods. The added step of involving support introduces a layer of communication that, based on my experience, contributes to delays and hinders the prompt implementation of responsible gaming measures. This change not only raises concerns about user convenience but also poses questions about the platform's commitment to efficient and timely responses to users seeking to manage their gambling activities responsibly.

This change not only contradicts the previous streamlined process of automated self-exclusion directly through their website but also opens the door for potential delays in responding to account closure requests and cool-off periods. The added layer of communication with support could be exploited to extend the timeframe for responding, creating an opportunity for Cloudbet to argue against the account closure being due to responsible gaming reasons. This alteration not only raises concerns about user convenience but also introduces potential loopholes that could be utilized to challenge the genuine intention behind account closure requests

The removal of the previous option for users to self-exclude directly via the Cloudbet website has not only complicated the process but has also created a situation where delays and disputes can arise. If this option were still available, my account would have been closed promptly through a well-documented responsible gaming self-exclusion mechanism. The recent policy changes, requiring communication with support for account closure, have introduced unnecessary steps and potential avenues for dispute. Had Cloudbet adhered to the initial account termination requests promptly, or maintained the user-friendly self-exclusion mechanism, the current situation might have been avoided altogether. This policy alteration seems to have inadvertently opened the door for delays and disputes rather than fostering responsible gaming practices.

The sequence of four self-exclusions and five account closure requests, irrespective of the specific reason, underscores a persistent effort on my part to disengage from the platform. Cloudbet's failure to act on these requests, regardless of the grounds, has resulted in significant financial losses exceeding 100,000 EUR.

While acknowledging the importance of precise communication, I believe it's crucial to consider a more nuanced understanding of the situation, especially when dealing with potential signs of compulsive behavior.

Holistic Perspective on Self-Exclusions: The four self-exclusion requests manifest a consistent recognition of underlying gambling challenges. Each instance represents a conscientious effort to address compulsive behavior.

Persistent Termination Requests: The five account termination requests underscore a persistent desire to disengage from the platform, further emphasizing the urgency and severity of my situation.

Commitment to Responsible Gaming: The self-exclusion requests align with responsible gaming practices, demonstrating a proactive approach to curb impulsive gambling tendencies. The focus should not solely be on specific phrases but on the overarching responsible gaming actions taken.

Financial Implications: Substantial financial losses incurred within a brief period reflect the gravity of the situation. These losses should be viewed as symptomatic of deeper compulsive behavior, demanding attention and intervention.

Patterns of Large Deposits: The pattern of sizable deposits within a short timeframe is a recognized indicator of compulsive gambling. This behavior needs careful consideration in the assessment of my case.

April 6: First self-exclusion request submitted through the platform, demonstrating continued commitment to managing gambling behavior.

April 13: Second self-exclusion request made via Cloudbet website, indicating a proactive step towards responsible gaming.

June 10: Third self-exclusion request made, reinforcing the user's dedication to implementing responsible gaming measures.

October 1, 2021: Fourth self-exclusion request initiated, further highlighting ongoing efforts to address compulsive gambling tendencies.

October 10: ONLY 9 days after my last self-exclusion, the first account termination request submitted. Although not explicitly detailed, the intent was clear—to discontinue any association with the platform.

February 8: Three different account termination requested in the same day

February 12: The last account termination request

Subsequent Account Termination Requests: Additional requests for account termination were made following the initial one, amplifying the urgency and seriousness of the user's situation.

Post-October 10: Despite account closure requests, there was continued access to the account, leading to further financial losses and psychological distress.

Had Cloudbet adhered to its previous user-friendly self-exclusion mechanism, where users could autonomously initiate longer periods or permanent account closure directly through the website, the potential dangers of continued gambling could have been mitigated. The policy change, limiting users to a 24-hour cooling-off period via the website, has created unnecessary complications and delays in addressing responsible gaming concerns. By restricting the available options for self-exclusion, Cloudbet has inadvertently contributed to an environment where users like me face challenges in promptly implementing essential restrictions, thus increasing the risk of problematic gambling behavior.

Cloudbet's failure to identify and address problem gambling is evident on multiple fronts. Despite my explicit attempts through self-exclusion to highlight concerns about my gambling behavior, Cloudbet lacked an effective mechanism to recognize and act upon these signals. The absence of a self-exclusion method, where users can autonomously complete the process, further magnifies their shortcomings in promoting responsible gaming. Moreover, the platform demonstrated a consistent failure to comply with five account termination requests, signaling a disregard for user concerns and a lack of commitment to fostering a safe gambling environment. This persistent neglect not only undermines Cloudbet's responsibility to protect its users but also raises questions about the platform's commitment to upholding ethical gaming practices.

These events, when viewed collectively, underscore a consistent pattern of responsible gaming efforts and a persistent desire to disengage from the platform due to perceived compulsive behavior. The chronological progression reflects a proactive approach to managing gambling habits and the challenges faced during this period.I trust this detailed perspective aids in a thorough reevaluation of my situation.

Dear CEG & ADR & Casino Guru Staff ,

I trust this missive reaches you amidst the profound reflection that your recent decision warrants. However, I must convey my deep dissatisfaction and utter incredulity at the summary dismissal of my complaint. The gravity of the situation seems to have escaped your discernment, and I am compelled to bring forth the severity of the matter at hand.

Your cavalier assertion that no new evidence was presented, and consequently, no impact on the original ruling, borders on the preposterous. The meticulous compilation of evidence and the undeniable disparities in the decision-making process demand more than a cursory dismissal. This is not a mere discrepancy; it is an affront to fairness, justice, and the integrity of your purported dispute resolution mechanisms.

The revelation that simulations conducted by advanced AI Lawyers consistently favored the player is a damning indictment of your organization's competence. The glaring incongruities between the simulated outcomes and the actual ruling suggest a process that is either woefully flawed or, dare I say, rigged. This realization does not bode well for an entity entrusted with ensuring fair play and ethical standards in the gambling industry.

Curacao organization's reputation, or rather the lack thereof, is a stain that will persist long after your tenure. The decisions you make today will echo through the corridors of time, and the legacy you leave for future generations is one of dubious ethics, questionable practices, and a blatant disregard for the very principles you purport to uphold.

The perpetual neglect of sub-licenses under CEG master license is not just a procedural lapse; it is an ethical blight that will continue to erode any semblance of credibility your organization clings to. Going against players, especially in light of the evidence presented, further cements the perception that your interests are indelibly aligned with operators, irrespective of the repercussions for the players you are duty-bound to protect.

It is nigh impossible to reconcile the evidence laid bare with the decision that was rendered. The extensive documentation of policies and responsible gaming infringements should have been a clarion call for a different outcome. The discrepancy between what was presented and the ruling exposes not only the inadequacy of your decision-making process but also the implicit bias that seems to favor operators over players.

Your assurances of taking disputes more seriously appear to be nothing more than lip service when confronted with a ruling that appears to wilfully prioritize operator interests over player rights. This is not just an affront to justice; it is an indictment of the very principles your organization claims to embody.

Consider this not just a demand for reconsideration but a stern warning. We are steadfast in our commitment to exposing the deficiencies in your system and ensuring that players are no longer subjected to arbitrary and unjust rulings. The determination to dismantle the illusion of credibility your organization projects will persist until meaningful change is implemented.

This is not just about the present; it is about the legacy you are crafting for future generations. The decisions you make today will resonate through the annals of time, shaping the perception of a jurisdiction that either upholds the highest standards or descends into a morass of ethical ambiguity.

The ball is now in your court, and the world is watching.

Can you confirm whether you followed my previous instructions to submit a request clearly outlining the reason for wanting to exclude your account? It's important to note that simply opening or closing a casino account without specifying the reason doesn't hold the casino accountable or obligate them to refund any funds. Please understand that stating you have a gambling addiction would significantly alter the situation, and we would be willing to assist. However, up to this point, we haven't received such evidence from you that you informed the casino about your gambling problem.

The essence of my motivation behind each self-exclusion and account termination request was to actively engage in responsible gaming practices, underscoring my commitment to a more balanced and controlled gambling experience.

While the precise term "gambling addiction" may not have been explicitly articulated, the substance and context of my requests unequivocally conveyed the gravity of the situation.

Regrettably, Cloudbet has consistently neglected these account closure requests, leading to continued access to the account and, consequently, substantial financial losses. The evidence presented is not merely a formality but a genuine attempt to communicate my concerns and implement responsible gaming safeguards, which, regrettably, have been overlooked.

I firmly believe that the acknowledgment of responsible gaming measures should transcend the specific terminology used and instead be rooted in an understanding of the communication's substance and the user's genuine intent.

In response to the assertion that "simply opening or closing a casino account without specifying the reason doesn't hold the casino accountable or obligate them to refund any funds," it is imperative to underscore the inherent disparity between the actions of opening and closing an account. The act of closing an account is fundamentally distinct, especially when done explicitly and multiple times. Consequently, there exists a legitimate expectation for the casino to promptly adhere to the user's request, failure of which carries ethical and financial ramifications, as evidenced by the losses incurred during the continued access to the account.

As of today, there is no confirmation that you have submitted the appropriate self-exclusion request to the casino, as previously recommended. Furthermore, we have not received any supporting evidence indicating that you notified the casino of your gambling problem. I highly recommend utilizing the template provided to you for self-exclusion from this casino and any others in the future. Without the player's cooperation, our ability to assist and confront casinos is limited and ineffective.

I wish I could be of more help. I’m sorry we couldn’t help you to resolve this case, but please do not hesitate to contact us if you run into any issues with any other casino in the future. For the abovementioned reasons, I will now reject this complaint. Thank you for your understanding.