I am filing a complaint against the casino due to a severe breach of responsible gambling obligations, which led to a financial loss of 1,600 EUR.
Chronology of events:
On February 4, 2023, I submitted a request for a permanent self-exclusion from Wildz and all its sister sites due to a diagnosed gambling addiction.
Despite this permanent ban, the casino allowed me to create a new account, log in using direct bank authentication, and deposit 1,600 EUR, which I lost.
When I contacted support, the representative ("Jasmin") admitted that the site is a sister casino to Wildz but claimed that because of an "operator change," their system identified me as a "new customer" and did not recognize my previous exclusion.
Why this is a breach: The operator acknowledges that the site is part of the same sister casino network as my excluded accounts. Claiming that a "system change" or "operator transition" allows them to ignore a permanent self-exclusion for a known gambling addict is a failure to uphold responsible gambling standards and MGA licensing requirements. They had a duty to ensure that my self-exclusion data was migrated or at least recognized when operating the same brand.
Desired resolution: I request a refund of my 1,600 EUR deposits because the operator knowingly failed to enforce a mandatory self-exclusion, allowing a vulnerable player to deposit and lose funds.
I am filing a complaint against the casino due to a severe breach of responsible gambling obligations, which led to a financial loss of 1,600 EUR.
Chronology of events:
On February 4, 2023, I submitted a request for a permanent self-exclusion from Wildz and all its sister sites due to a diagnosed gambling addiction.
Despite this permanent ban, the casino allowed me to create a new account, log in using direct bank authentication, and deposit 1,600 EUR, which I lost.
When I contacted support, the representative ("Jasmin") admitted that the site is a sister casino to Wildz but claimed that because of an "operator change," their system identified me as a "new customer" and did not recognize my previous exclusion.
Why this is a breach: The operator acknowledges that the site is part of the same sister casino network as my excluded accounts. Claiming that a "system change" or "operator transition" allows them to ignore a permanent self-exclusion for a known gambling addict is a failure to uphold responsible gambling standards and MGA licensing requirements. They had a duty to ensure that my self-exclusion data was migrated or at least recognized when operating the same brand.
Desired resolution: I request a refund of my 1,600 EUR deposits because the operator knowingly failed to enforce a mandatory self-exclusion, allowing a vulnerable player to deposit and lose funds.