Dear Casino Guru Team,
Thank you for sharing CoinCasino’s response and for your continued assistance with this case.
However, I would like to clarify several important points that I believe have been inaccurately represented.
First of all, CoinCasino states that their system detected the connection between my accounts and that the second account was closed once this link was identified. This is not correct.
The second account was not closed because CoinCasino detected it.
It was closed only after I personally contacted them by email, informing them that I had been able to open another account despite previously requesting the closure of my first account due to gambling addiction.
As already shared with Veronika, I personally contacted CoinCasino by email to inform them that I had opened a second account and asked them to close it immediately.
In that email, I clearly:
informed them that I had opened a second account,
requested the closure of that account,
and pointed out that their system had failed to protect a player who had already declared gambling problems.
CoinCasino did not respond to my email, and the account was closed only afterwards, following my request.
This means that the closure of the second account did not result from their internal detection systems, but from my own report.
I would also like to highlight another important point in their response. CoinCasino states that the second account was created using the same personal data and payment methods, and that they were able to identify the connection between the accounts. This clearly indicates that they had the ability to recognize that the same player who had previously requested account closure due to gambling addiction had opened a new account, yet the account was still allowed to operate, allowing deposits, gambling activity and withdrawals to take place before any action was taken
If this is the case, this raises an important question: why was the account allowed to be created and used in the first place, especially considering that the original account had already been closed due to gambling addiction?
If the operator was able to identify the same personal information and payment methods, the system should have blocked the registration immediately, rather than allowing deposits and gambling activity to occur.
In my situation:
I had already requested the closure of my account due to gambling addiction.
I was able to create a new account using the same personal details and payment methods.
I was able to deposit, gamble and even withdraw funds before any action was taken.
Furthermore, I was also able to make withdrawals from the second account. As far as I understand, the first withdrawals on the platform require manual approval by a human operator. This means that the account activity was reviewed by staff, yet no action was taken to identify that I was the same player who had previously requested account closure due to gambling addiction.
Responsible gambling systems should prevent exactly this scenario.
It is also important to highlight another aspect. A vulnerable player who has already declared gambling problems may attempt to open multiple accounts during a moment of loss of control. This is precisely why responsible gambling protections exist.
A problematic player might try to open one, ten, or even many accounts during a gambling rush, and the operator’s responsibility is to prevent this immediately, especially when the same personal details and payment methods are used.
Protective systems should stop the player at the registration stage, not only after deposits and gambling activity have already taken place. Moreover, once CoinCasino became aware that I was the same player who had previously requested account closure due to gambling addiction, they should have immediately intervened and prevented any further gambling activity, rather than allowing me to continue playing and losing until I personally requested the closure of the second account.
The second account should NEVER have been allowed after I had already requested account closure due to gambling addiction.
Thank you again for taking the time to review this matter and for your support.
Kind regards,
Emanuele
Dear Casino Guru Team,
Thank you for sharing CoinCasino’s response and for your continued assistance with this case.
However, I would like to clarify several important points that I believe have been inaccurately represented.
First of all, CoinCasino states that their system detected the connection between my accounts and that the second account was closed once this link was identified. This is not correct.
The second account was not closed because CoinCasino detected it.
It was closed only after I personally contacted them by email, informing them that I had been able to open another account despite previously requesting the closure of my first account due to gambling addiction.
As already shared with Veronika, I personally contacted CoinCasino by email to inform them that I had opened a second account and asked them to close it immediately.
In that email, I clearly:
informed them that I had opened a second account,
requested the closure of that account,
and pointed out that their system had failed to protect a player who had already declared gambling problems.
CoinCasino did not respond to my email, and the account was closed only afterwards, following my request.
This means that the closure of the second account did not result from their internal detection systems, but from my own report.
I would also like to highlight another important point in their response. CoinCasino states that the second account was created using the same personal data and payment methods, and that they were able to identify the connection between the accounts. This clearly indicates that they had the ability to recognize that the same player who had previously requested account closure due to gambling addiction had opened a new account, yet the account was still allowed to operate, allowing deposits, gambling activity and withdrawals to take place before any action was taken
If this is the case, this raises an important question: why was the account allowed to be created and used in the first place, especially considering that the original account had already been closed due to gambling addiction?
If the operator was able to identify the same personal information and payment methods, the system should have blocked the registration immediately, rather than allowing deposits and gambling activity to occur.
In my situation:
I had already requested the closure of my account due to gambling addiction.
I was able to create a new account using the same personal details and payment methods.
I was able to deposit, gamble and even withdraw funds before any action was taken.
Furthermore, I was also able to make withdrawals from the second account. As far as I understand, the first withdrawals on the platform require manual approval by a human operator. This means that the account activity was reviewed by staff, yet no action was taken to identify that I was the same player who had previously requested account closure due to gambling addiction.
Responsible gambling systems should prevent exactly this scenario.
It is also important to highlight another aspect. A vulnerable player who has already declared gambling problems may attempt to open multiple accounts during a moment of loss of control. This is precisely why responsible gambling protections exist.
A problematic player might try to open one, ten, or even many accounts during a gambling rush, and the operator’s responsibility is to prevent this immediately, especially when the same personal details and payment methods are used.
Protective systems should stop the player at the registration stage, not only after deposits and gambling activity have already taken place. Moreover, once CoinCasino became aware that I was the same player who had previously requested account closure due to gambling addiction, they should have immediately intervened and prevented any further gambling activity, rather than allowing me to continue playing and losing until I personally requested the closure of the second account.
The second account should NEVER have been allowed after I had already requested account closure due to gambling addiction.
Thank you again for taking the time to review this matter and for your support.
Kind regards,
Emanuele