I am submitting this complaint regarding Get Slots and their handling of my existing self-exclusion.
I want to make it very clear that this complaint is not about the general risks associated with gambling, nor am I claiming that I should not be responsible for my decision to gamble. My complaint is specifically about the casino's handling of a self-exclusion that was already in place and that Get Slots subsequently acknowledged.
My self-exclusion from Anjouan Internet Gaming License operators had been in place for more than two weeksbefore I accessed Get Slots.
Despite this, Get Slots allowed me to access the casino, deposit funds, and gamble. I deposited a total of $1,050.
Approximately one hour after I began playing, Get Slots acknowledged my existing self-exclusion and subsequently closed/restricted my account.
This is the key issue: the casino acknowledged that my self-exclusion existed, but only after allowing me to play and accepting $1,050 from me.
If my self-exclusion was valid and applicable to Get Slots, then I should not have been permitted to access the casino and make deposits in the first place. The fact that the casino eventually recognized the exclusion does not change the fact that it had already accepted my deposits and allowed me to gamble for approximately an hour.
Following this, Get Slots also requested my banking information, which I provided. However, despite acknowledging the situation and requesting my banking information, I have now been left without a meaningful update or resolution.
I therefore believe I am entitled to the return of the $1,050 I deposited after my self-exclusion should have prevented me from accessing the casino.
Again, I want to emphasize that I am not making a complaint about gambling itself or attempting to avoid responsibility for gambling losses simply because gambling involves risk. The issue is that I had already taken the specific step of self-excluding, that exclusion had been active for over two weeks, and Get Slots ultimately acknowledged it themselves.
The casino should not be able to accept my deposits, allow me to gamble for an hour, and then only recognize and enforce the self-exclusion afterward.
I am asking Casino Guru to investigate whether Get Slots properly honoured my existing self-exclusion and, if not, whether the $1,050 deposited during the period in which I should have been excluded should be refunded in full.
I am simply seeking a fair resolution and the return of the $1,050 that was accepted from me despite my already-active and subsequently acknowledged self-exclusion.
I am submitting this complaint regarding Get Slots and their handling of my existing self-exclusion.
I want to make it very clear that this complaint is not about the general risks associated with gambling, nor am I claiming that I should not be responsible for my decision to gamble. My complaint is specifically about the casino's handling of a self-exclusion that was already in place and that Get Slots subsequently acknowledged.
My self-exclusion from Anjouan Internet Gaming License operators had been in place for more than two weeksbefore I accessed Get Slots.
Despite this, Get Slots allowed me to access the casino, deposit funds, and gamble. I deposited a total of $1,050.
Approximately one hour after I began playing, Get Slots acknowledged my existing self-exclusion and subsequently closed/restricted my account.
This is the key issue: the casino acknowledged that my self-exclusion existed, but only after allowing me to play and accepting $1,050 from me.
If my self-exclusion was valid and applicable to Get Slots, then I should not have been permitted to access the casino and make deposits in the first place. The fact that the casino eventually recognized the exclusion does not change the fact that it had already accepted my deposits and allowed me to gamble for approximately an hour.
Following this, Get Slots also requested my banking information, which I provided. However, despite acknowledging the situation and requesting my banking information, I have now been left without a meaningful update or resolution.
I therefore believe I am entitled to the return of the $1,050 I deposited after my self-exclusion should have prevented me from accessing the casino.
Again, I want to emphasize that I am not making a complaint about gambling itself or attempting to avoid responsibility for gambling losses simply because gambling involves risk. The issue is that I had already taken the specific step of self-excluding, that exclusion had been active for over two weeks, and Get Slots ultimately acknowledged it themselves.
The casino should not be able to accept my deposits, allow me to gamble for an hour, and then only recognize and enforce the self-exclusion afterward.
I am asking Casino Guru to investigate whether Get Slots properly honoured my existing self-exclusion and, if not, whether the $1,050 deposited during the period in which I should have been excluded should be refunded in full.
I am simply seeking a fair resolution and the return of the $1,050 that was accepted from me despite my already-active and subsequently acknowledged self-exclusion.