Instant Casino - Player faces self-exclusion control failures.

1. Breach of Self-Exclusion Terms

The company’s Terms and Conditions state that during self exclusion:

- Users must not be permitted to access services;

- Users must not be able to register or use new accounts, and;

- Permanent self-exclusion results in indefinite restriction from all services. 

Despite this, I was able to:

- Create a new account after permanent self-exclusion;

- Complete KYC verification using my real identity, and;

- Continue depositing and gambling.

This represents a clear failure to enforce the company’s stated self-exclusion obligations. Further, Tobique’s own General Code of Practice states that "The customer’s request for self-exclusion should be implemented consistently across all brands and products under the control of the licensee (Para 19.4). 

2. Failure of Identity-Based Controls (KYC)

The second account was fully KYC-verified prior to being allowed to gamble. This means:

- The company had confirmed my identity;

- The company had existing records of my self-exclusion;

- Yet no effective restriction was applied. 

This indicates failure in:

- Duplicate account detection systems;

- Self-exclusion enforcement tools, and;

- Responsible gambling safeguards linked to identity verification.

3. Regulatory Responsibility

As a licensed operator under Tobique, the company is required to maintain effective systems to:

- Enforce self-exclusion requests;

- Prevent re-access by excluded users, and;

- Ensure identity verification triggers appropriate safeguarding controls. 

Allowing a permanently self-excluded, KYC-verified user to continue gambling represents a serious compliance failure under those obligations.

4. Harm Resulting From Failure

As a direct result of this failure:

- I was able to continue gambling after a permanent exclusion was in place;

- Deposits and wagering activity were accepted, and;

- Loss exposure was enabled that should have been prevented by the company’s controls.

When I reached out to the company;s general support regarding this breach, I was met with a canned response, stating that according to their Terms and Conditions, I was not allowed to have multiple accounts, and that they also did not permit refunds of gambled funds. Tobique’s General Code of Practice states that "Where a customer is able to breach the exclusion system and is subsequently detected, the reimbursement of deposits is at the licensees’ discretion and should take into account the history of the customer. Breaches to self-exclusion should not be incentivized by the automatic reimbursement of deposits or the payment of winnings" (Para 19.10). However, the General Code of Practice does not define or specify the term "breached". Thus, I do not believe the above action meets the threshold of "breached". That would indicate an attempt to circumvent the responsible gambling guard rails in place. However, in this case, there were none. I also received no response when I attempted to file a complaint via the company’s complaint email. In addition, I was not given an immediate option to set a longer self-exclusion period once the cooling-off period had ended, and instead received a "welcome back" email.

5. Failure to Display Tobique Verification Shield 

Upon making the decision to file a complaint against the company for the above actions, I began researching who the licenser was. Upon discovering that the company was licensed by Tobique, I visited Tobique’s website to discover that in order to file a complaint, I had to use the Tobique Shield located on the company’s website. Upon further investigation, I discovered that the company’s website in fact did not have this shield. This makes filing regulator complaints against the company impossible for its users and violates Tobique’s own rules. 

6. Required Resolution

Given the nature of these breaches, I am requesting:

- A full refund of losses incurred;

- A full audit of how KYC verification failed to identify my exclusion status;

- A written explanation of why duplicate-account and self-exclusion safeguards failed;

- A written explanation of why the company does not have the Tobique Shield on their website, and;

- Confirmation of corrective actions taken.

This complaint is made based on documented account activity, KYC verification records, and self exclusion history.

Important notice:

Casino Guru will never ask for payments or access to your accounts to complete KYC. If someone claims to be from Casino Guru and does that, do not share any information.

We only contact players through this official complaint thread or via @casino.guru e-mail addresses. Always check the sender’s domain and verify your complaint resolver’s e-mail address by clicking on their avatar visible inside the official complaint thread.

If anything seems suspicious, contact us directly.

Stay safe.

Dear swolecanuck,

Thank you very much for submitting your complaint. I’m sorry to hear about your negative experience with Instant Casino.

Based on what you’ve shared, the key point will be to determine whether the self-exclusion was properly enforced and what exactly happened afterward.

In order for us to proceed, I would like to kindly ask you to clarify a few important details:

• When did you request self-exclusion from the casino? When was the account closed?
• When did you reopen your account?
• Could you please forward me the original self-exclusion request along with the casino's response? My email address is jean.s@casino.guru.
• Has your account now been closed, or is it still active?

Your cooperation in providing these details will help us investigate and work towards a resolution.

Thank you in advance for your reply.

Best regards,

Jean