The player from Austria filed a complaint against LuckyHunter and its operator, Stable Tech NV, demanding a full refund of €14,450 after declaring his gambling addiction to another casino, Hollywin, prior to making the deposits. He argued that effective player protection measures were not applied, allowing him to open a new account and incur losses despite his known gambling issues. After reviewing the evidence, we did not pursue the refund because the exclusion was only confirmed for Hollywin and was not sufficiently shown to have been applied to LuckyHunter. We also found that sister-casino self-exclusion and common ownership alone were not enough to establish responsibility for the LuckyHunter losses.
Lucky Hunter Casino - Player demands a refund after self-exclusion at a sister casino.
Closed
Our verdict
Unjustified complaint
Amount: €14,450
Lucky Hunter Casino
Safety Index 7.7 Above averageCase summary
Discussion
Public
Public
1 week ago
Translation
Dear CasinoGuru Team,
I hereby file an official complaint against the online casino LuckyHunter and its operator Stable Tech NV.
I demand a full refund of my net deposits of €14,450, as I explicitly declared to Casino Hollywin on August 17, 2026, that I am a gambling addict.
1. Gambling addiction already reported to Hollywin
On August 17, 2026, I explicitly informed Hollywin that I suffer from gambling addiction.
This notification was sent long before I made the deposits at LuckyHunter that are the subject of this complaint.
This meant that my gambling addiction had already been disclosed to a casino which, to my knowledge, belongs to the same operating company as LuckyHunter, Stable Tech NV.
I explicitly request that CasinoGuru verify this shared operator affiliation.
2. Joint Operator Stable Tech NV
The crucial point of my complaint is the connection between Hollywin and LuckyHunter via Stable Tech NV
Should it be confirmed that both casinos were operated by the same company at the relevant time, my previously reported gambling addiction should, in my view, have been taken into account within the framework of effective, operator-spanning player protection.
Despite my explicit notification to Hollywin, I was unable to contact LuckyHunter:
Open a new player account using the same email address.
Use the same personal data.
All KYC verification procedures have been successfully completed.
Repeatedly depositing large sums of money.
Continue playing without effective restrictions and suffer significant financial losses.
What is particularly problematic is that my identity was fully established during the KYC checks.
I consider it a serious potential violation of the principles of responsible gambling if an operator becomes aware of a specifically reported gambling addiction but then allows the affected player to gamble again through another brand of the same corporate group.
In my view, simply changing the casino brand should not render a known gambling addiction and corresponding protective measures ineffective.
3. Proof of my financial losses
My transaction summaries at LuckyHunter document the following for the period from October 14, 2026 to October 25, 2026:
Total deposits: €19,450
Total payouts: €5,000
Net loss: €14,450
All transactions are documented by screenshots.
4. Operator's responsibility
I specifically request that CasinoGuru examine the following questions:
Were Hollywin and LuckyHunter operated by Stable Tech NV at the time I reported my gambling addiction and made subsequent deposits?
Why was my gambling addiction, which I explicitly reported on August 17, 2026, not taken into account in the further gambling offers?
Why was I able to open a new account with the same email address and identical personal data?
Why did the KYC verifications not lead to the detection of my already reported gambling addiction?
What cross-operator player protection measures were in place and why did they not apply in my case?
I believe that a gambling operator should not be allowed to evade its responsibility towards vulnerable players by offering gambling under different brands.
5. My explicit demand for a refund
Due to these circumstances, I demand full reimbursement of my net loss of €14,450.
This claim is directed against LuckyHunter or the responsible operating company Stable Tech NV, insofar as their responsibility for the casinos in question is confirmed.
I demand a comprehensive investigation into the facts and a comprehensible explanation as to why my previously explicitly reported gambling addiction has not led to effective protective measures.
My complaint is not merely about dissatisfaction with lost bets, but about the possible disregard for a known gambling addiction by a shared gambling operator.
I expressly request that CasinoGuru assess the case from the perspective of player protection and potential cross-operator responsibility.
My communication dated August 17, 2026, as well as the complete transaction records from LuckyHunter, are available as evidence.
I request support in enforcing my claim for a refund of €14,450 and a statement from the responsible operator.
Best regards
Automatic translation:
Public
Public
6 days ago
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.
Public
Public
6 days ago
Hello,
Thank you very much for submitting this complaint. I’m sorry to hear about the problem you’re experiencing.
For complaints involving Curaçao-licensed casinos, self-exclusion at a sister casino alone is not sufficient for us to pursue a refund. To assess a separate self-exclusion failure at LuckyHunter, I would need to establish whether you directly informed this casino of your gambling problem and requested self-exclusion before the gambling activity concerned.
Therefore, please allow me to ask you a few questions to clarify your situation.
- Did you contact LuckyHunter directly, explain your gambling problem, and request self-exclusion? If so, please specify when and forward the relevant correspondence to veronika.f@casino.guru, referencing complaint 239004.
- Can you still access your LuckyHunter account, or has it been closed?
- Did either casino explicitly confirm that your self-exclusion would also cover LuckyHunter? If so, please forward that confirmation to the email address above.
I hope we will be able to help you resolve this issue as soon as possible. Thank you in advance for your reply.
Best regards
Veronika
Public
Public
6 days ago
TranslationDear Veronika,
I have just sent you a detailed email with further evidence regarding my complaint no. 239004.
This document contains my explicit request for a cross-platform self-exclusion dated August 16, 2026, as well as references to the relevant CGA guidelines.
Furthermore, I stated that my LuckyHunter account was only blocked after I requested a refund.
I ask you to take these new findings into account when examining my complaint.
Thank you for your support.
Best regards
Edited
Automatic translation:
Public
Public
15 hours ago
Dear jmayerhofer,
After reviewing your complaint and the additional evidence you provided, I am sorry to inform you that I cannot pursue your request for a €14,450 refund from LuckyHunter.
I understand why you expected your request to protect you across all platforms associated with the same operator. You expressly disclosed a gambling addiction when communicating with Hollywin Casino, and I recognise the seriousness of the situation you have described. However, I must distinguish your requested scope of exclusion from the protection that was demonstrably confirmed and applicable to your LuckyHunter account.
The timeline presented in your evidence is as follows:
- 16 August 2026: You sent an email to Hollywin requesting an immediate ban on all platforms and explicitly mentioning your gambling addiction.
- 17 August 2026: You answered Hollywin’s responsible gambling questionnaire. Hollywin subsequently confirmed that your account had been closed because of signs of problematic gambling.
- 14–25 October 2026: According to your submission, you deposited €19,450 and withdrew €5,000 at LuckyHunter, resulting in the €14,450 net loss claimed in this complaint.
- 28 October 2026: You state that you could still access LuckyHunter. You subsequently reported that access was blocked after you requested a refund.
- 29 October 2026: You clarified that your original exclusion request had been sent to Hollywin rather than directly to LuckyHunter, and that neither casino had expressly confirmed that the exclusion covered LuckyHunter.
The evidence supports that you disclosed your gambling problem to Hollywin and that Hollywin closed your account. However, Hollywin’s confirmation concerns your account at Hollywin; it does not expressly confirm that an exclusion was activated for LuckyHunter or every other associated brand. Likewise, your request to be excluded from all platforms establishes what you asked for, but does not independently establish that this wider protection was implemented or confirmed.
I have also considered your reference to the Responsible Gaming Policy attributed to Stable Tech N.V. The document contains wording concerning exclusion across the operator’s brands. However, the copy you referenced is hosted on a third-party website. Its availability there does not, by itself, establish that it was the applicable policy governing both of your accounts during the relevant period. The supplied material does not sufficiently establish its authenticity, applicable version, or incorporation into the conditions governing your LuckyHunter account.
This does not mean that I have determined the document is false. It means that I cannot treat it as sufficient confirmation that your Hollywin exclusion covered LuckyHunter, or as proof that LuckyHunter owes the refund you requested.
Under Casino Guru’s approach to these complaints, self-exclusion at a sister casino and common ownership alone are insufficient for us to pursue reimbursement from another Curaçao-licensed casino. We would need a supported basis showing that the exclusion covered the casino concerned, or evidence of a separate failure to act on a gambling-related exclusion request made directly to that casino before the disputed activity. Neither basis has been sufficiently established here.
Your report that LuckyHunter blocked your account after the refund request does not, by itself, establish responsibility for the earlier October losses. Since you have confirmed that you can no longer access the account, there is also no outstanding request for account protection for me to pursue within this complaint.
For more information about the licensing framework, responsible gambling provisions, and the regulator’s role, I recommend reading our article about the Curaçao Gaming Authority and Curaçao licences.
I am sorry that I cannot offer a more favourable outcome. Thank you for the time you took to explain your situation and provide the supporting materials.
Best regards
Veronika
