Dear xSerious169,
I have received the emails you sent to my alternative work address. I have also received further information and supporting evidence from the casino team.
According to the casino’s records, no email from you was received on February 20. As your messages were sent through your @web.de email account, which appears to have experienced delivery issues with multiple recipients—including my primary work address—the casino team could not reasonably have been aware of your intention at that time.
Moreover, even if the casino had received your email, you had not yet registered an account, and your email address was therefore not present in its system. In such circumstances, we do not consider the casino obligated to proactively block an email address belonging to a person who is not yet registered. Given your history of similar complaints, I am somewhat puzzled by your actions, as you have previously been informed that we do not consider preventive self-exclusion to be a mandatory responsible gambling measure.
You created your casino account on 1 March 2025. The casino received your self-exclusion request later that day and closed your account on the same day. Based on the available information and evidence, the casino acted in accordance with its standard procedures.
You have also previously been advised by my colleagues of the recommended steps to follow in such situations.
Having carefully reviewed the information and evidence provided by both parties, I have found nothing to suggest that the casino failed to comply with its Terms and Conditions or generally accepted industry standards in this matter.
While casinos are expected to apply appropriate responsible gambling measures, players also bear significant responsibility for their own actions. This includes refraining from registering with or depositing at a casino, particularly after having already requested not to be allowed to play there.
Consequently, I cannot agree with your claim that the casino failed to implement the self-exclusion limitation on your account in a reasonable time, and thus your request to refund the funds you normally lost is unjustified in this case.
I understand this is not the outcome you have hoped for; however, as mentioned, I have found nothing to suggest that the casino failed to comply with its Terms and Conditions or generally accepted industry standards in this matter.
You are entitled to pursue this matter with the appropriate authorities if you still believe your stance is justified; however, we are not able to provide any further assistance. Feel free to let me know of the authorities' decision, should you opt for this route at michal.k@casino.guru.
With all this being said, and considering the core issue of this case has been resolved, can I proceed with closing this case as clarified/addressed?
Dear xSerious169,
I have received the emails you sent to my alternative work address. I have also received further information and supporting evidence from the casino team.
According to the casino’s records, no email from you was received on February 20. As your messages were sent through your @web.de email account, which appears to have experienced delivery issues with multiple recipients—including my primary work address—the casino team could not reasonably have been aware of your intention at that time.
Moreover, even if the casino had received your email, you had not yet registered an account, and your email address was therefore not present in its system. In such circumstances, we do not consider the casino obligated to proactively block an email address belonging to a person who is not yet registered. Given your history of similar complaints, I am somewhat puzzled by your actions, as you have previously been informed that we do not consider preventive self-exclusion to be a mandatory responsible gambling measure.
You created your casino account on 1 March 2025. The casino received your self-exclusion request later that day and closed your account on the same day. Based on the available information and evidence, the casino acted in accordance with its standard procedures.
You have also previously been advised by my colleagues of the recommended steps to follow in such situations.
Having carefully reviewed the information and evidence provided by both parties, I have found nothing to suggest that the casino failed to comply with its Terms and Conditions or generally accepted industry standards in this matter.
While casinos are expected to apply appropriate responsible gambling measures, players also bear significant responsibility for their own actions. This includes refraining from registering with or depositing at a casino, particularly after having already requested not to be allowed to play there.
Consequently, I cannot agree with your claim that the casino failed to implement the self-exclusion limitation on your account in a reasonable time, and thus your request to refund the funds you normally lost is unjustified in this case.
I understand this is not the outcome you have hoped for; however, as mentioned, I have found nothing to suggest that the casino failed to comply with its Terms and Conditions or generally accepted industry standards in this matter.
You are entitled to pursue this matter with the appropriate authorities if you still believe your stance is justified; however, we are not able to provide any further assistance. Feel free to let me know of the authorities' decision, should you opt for this route at michal.k@casino.guru.
With all this being said, and considering the core issue of this case has been resolved, can I proceed with closing this case as clarified/addressed?