I fundamentally disagree with the statement issued by JackTop Casino, as it does not accurately reflect the content, context, or seriousness of my communications, nor the actual conduct of the casino during the relevant period.
It is incorrect to state that my earlier messages did not explicitly indicate a serious gambling problem or a need for protection. In my correspondence with JackTop’s VIP manager, I repeatedly and unequivocally stated that:
gambling was destroying my life
I needed to protect myself
I wanted to stop gambling
I had lost all my savings
I could no longer pay my bills
my gas and electricity had been disconnected
These were not vague or neutral requests for account closure. They were explicit indicators of severe financial distress and problem gambling, which under any responsible gambling framework should have triggered immediate protective measures.
Although JackTop states that my account was closed "immediately upon the final explicit request," this entirely misses the core issue. The issue is not whether the account was eventually closed, but that it was not closed at the time I repeatedly and clearly requested it, despite the serious warning signs I provided. During this period, my account remained accessible, enabling me to continue gambling and incur further losses.
JackTop’s assertion that my requests were treated as "standard closure requests" is precisely the failure at issue. Given the substance of my messages, these requests should never have been classified as standard. Instead of closing my account, the VIP manager repeatedly attempted to dissuade me, proposed temporary breaks rather than permanent closure, used personal and emotional language, and continued to offer bonuses and other incentives. In several instances, bonuses were credited after I had explicitly stated that I needed to stop gambling and protect myself.
The claim that I "continued to deposit and play" omits the crucial fact that this occurred because my account remained open despite my repeated requests for closure. This establishes a direct causal link between JackTop’s inaction and the additional losses I suffered.
With regard to refunds, I am aware of the general refund policy cited by JackTop. However, this matter goes beyond ordinary gameplay losses. It concerns a failure of duty of care and responsible gambling obligations, where a vulnerable player was actively retained rather than protected. Internal policies cannot override a casino’s responsibility to intervene when clear indicators of harm are present.
While JackTop refers to its Curaçao license and internal procedures, the documented communications demonstrate a pattern in which commercial interests were prioritized over player protection. Encouraging continued play, offering bonuses, and discouraging account closure in the face of explicit personal and financial crisis is incompatible with any genuine commitment to responsible gambling.
For the avoidance of doubt, my position is not that JackTop ultimately failed to close my account, but that it failed to do so at the point when it was necessary, despite repeated written warnings of serious harm. The resulting damage was foreseeable and could have been prevented.
Finally, for completeness, I confirm that I have engaged legal counsel specializing in gambling law and IT law. My preference remains to resolve this matter amicably. JackTop Casino is hereby invited to contact me with a substantive and good-faith proposal to resolve this dispute. Should such engagement not occur, my legal counsel will proceed with the necessary legal steps, at which point the full evidentiary record will be submitted to the competent court.
Kind regards,
Steven
I fundamentally disagree with the statement issued by JackTop Casino, as it does not accurately reflect the content, context, or seriousness of my communications, nor the actual conduct of the casino during the relevant period.
It is incorrect to state that my earlier messages did not explicitly indicate a serious gambling problem or a need for protection. In my correspondence with JackTop’s VIP manager, I repeatedly and unequivocally stated that:
gambling was destroying my life
I needed to protect myself
I wanted to stop gambling
I had lost all my savings
I could no longer pay my bills
my gas and electricity had been disconnected
These were not vague or neutral requests for account closure. They were explicit indicators of severe financial distress and problem gambling, which under any responsible gambling framework should have triggered immediate protective measures.
Although JackTop states that my account was closed "immediately upon the final explicit request," this entirely misses the core issue. The issue is not whether the account was eventually closed, but that it was not closed at the time I repeatedly and clearly requested it, despite the serious warning signs I provided. During this period, my account remained accessible, enabling me to continue gambling and incur further losses.
JackTop’s assertion that my requests were treated as "standard closure requests" is precisely the failure at issue. Given the substance of my messages, these requests should never have been classified as standard. Instead of closing my account, the VIP manager repeatedly attempted to dissuade me, proposed temporary breaks rather than permanent closure, used personal and emotional language, and continued to offer bonuses and other incentives. In several instances, bonuses were credited after I had explicitly stated that I needed to stop gambling and protect myself.
The claim that I "continued to deposit and play" omits the crucial fact that this occurred because my account remained open despite my repeated requests for closure. This establishes a direct causal link between JackTop’s inaction and the additional losses I suffered.
With regard to refunds, I am aware of the general refund policy cited by JackTop. However, this matter goes beyond ordinary gameplay losses. It concerns a failure of duty of care and responsible gambling obligations, where a vulnerable player was actively retained rather than protected. Internal policies cannot override a casino’s responsibility to intervene when clear indicators of harm are present.
While JackTop refers to its Curaçao license and internal procedures, the documented communications demonstrate a pattern in which commercial interests were prioritized over player protection. Encouraging continued play, offering bonuses, and discouraging account closure in the face of explicit personal and financial crisis is incompatible with any genuine commitment to responsible gambling.
For the avoidance of doubt, my position is not that JackTop ultimately failed to close my account, but that it failed to do so at the point when it was necessary, despite repeated written warnings of serious harm. The resulting damage was foreseeable and could have been prevented.
Finally, for completeness, I confirm that I have engaged legal counsel specializing in gambling law and IT law. My preference remains to resolve this matter amicably. JackTop Casino is hereby invited to contact me with a substantive and good-faith proposal to resolve this dispute. Should such engagement not occur, my legal counsel will proceed with the necessary legal steps, at which point the full evidentiary record will be submitted to the competent court.
Kind regards,
Steven