Dear LuckyBull Casino,
Thank you for your clarification. However, based on the information gathered so far, I must align with the player's position in this matter. As mentioned in my previous correspondence, the MGA license obliges operators managing multiple brands to ensure that their self-exclusion database is shared and enforced across all of these brands. This is explicitly stated by the MGA on their official website.
From our perspective, this constitutes a clear failure of self-exclusion protocols on your part, as the player, who has acknowledged their gambling problem, was able to register and play at your casino. Under these circumstances, we believe the player is entitled to a refund of their deposits.
You have previously indicated that the player's deposits will be refunded. Could you kindly provide an expected timeframe for when these funds will be returned? Are you currently awaiting a decision from MADRE before proceeding?
Thank you for your cooperation.
Dear enarb1,
As evident from the text above, our position remains that the casino should refund your deposits. Furthermore, during a self-exclusion period, players who have disclosed their gambling problems should neither incur losses nor gain any winnings. Regrettably, this means that you would not be eligible to claim any excessive winnings beyond the amount of your deposits.
That said, I am still unclear why there is hesitancy in sharing the decision you claim to have received from MADRE. At this point, you are accusing the casino of dishonesty without providing any substantiating evidence. To ensure transparency, I kindly request that you share at least the confirmation email from MADRE, along with a copy of your submitted complaint for review. You can forward these documents to my email at [email protected].
Thank you for your understanding.
Dear LuckyBull Casino,
Thank you for your clarification. However, based on the information gathered so far, I must align with the player's position in this matter. As mentioned in my previous correspondence, the MGA license obliges operators managing multiple brands to ensure that their self-exclusion database is shared and enforced across all of these brands. This is explicitly stated by the MGA on their official website.
From our perspective, this constitutes a clear failure of self-exclusion protocols on your part, as the player, who has acknowledged their gambling problem, was able to register and play at your casino. Under these circumstances, we believe the player is entitled to a refund of their deposits.
You have previously indicated that the player's deposits will be refunded. Could you kindly provide an expected timeframe for when these funds will be returned? Are you currently awaiting a decision from MADRE before proceeding?
Thank you for your cooperation.
Dear enarb1,
As evident from the text above, our position remains that the casino should refund your deposits. Furthermore, during a self-exclusion period, players who have disclosed their gambling problems should neither incur losses nor gain any winnings. Regrettably, this means that you would not be eligible to claim any excessive winnings beyond the amount of your deposits.
That said, I am still unclear why there is hesitancy in sharing the decision you claim to have received from MADRE. At this point, you are accusing the casino of dishonesty without providing any substantiating evidence. To ensure transparency, I kindly request that you share at least the confirmation email from MADRE, along with a copy of your submitted complaint for review. You can forward these documents to my email at [email protected].
Thank you for your understanding.