Dear Igor,
Thank you for your follow up questions. We are happy to clarify and provide full transparency.
Following a review of the player’s original email from March 2025, we can confirm the following facts:
1. Duration of the self exclusion
The player’s March request did not specify any duration, nor did it explicitly request a permanent self exclusion or irreversible account closure.
When a player requests self exclusion without defining a time frame, MrJones Casino applies a standard predefined temporary self exclusion period, in accordance with its Responsible Gambling Policy and internal system controls. This approach is designed to provide immediate protection while respecting player intent and avoiding imposing permanent restrictions that were not requested.
The length of the exclusion applied was therefore policy driven and system defined, not discretionary.
2. Whether the player was informed it was not permanent
Yes. At the time the restriction was applied, the player was informed that the self exclusion was temporary, and that the account would automatically reopen once the exclusion period expired, unless the player contacted the casino to request an extension or permanent closure.
The player was also advised that they could request a permanent closure at any time during or after the exclusion period.
No such request was received.
3. Reopening of the account
The account was not manually reopened by the casino, nor was any decision taken to override responsible gambling safeguards.
The reopening occurred automatically once the predefined exclusion period expired, as designed under the system and policy in place at the time. This is a standard, non discretionary process applied consistently across all player accounts.
4. Subsequent actions
Once the player contacted the casino again and confirmed ongoing gambling related concerns, the account was immediately and permanently closed. It remains permanently closed and will not be reopened under any circumstances.
5. Refund request
The refund request was reviewed separately and carefully, based on transaction records, timing, and the account status at the time of deposits. As the account was open, unrestricted, and operational in line with policy at the time the deposits were made, the request was declined. This decision was communicated to the player and remains final.
Conclusion
There was no policy breach, negligence, or discretionary reopening of a gambling restricted account.
The initial exclusion was temporary due to the absence of a specified duration or permanent request. The reopening was automatic and system driven. The casino acted appropriately and proportionately at every stage, and applied a permanent closure as soon as the player reiterated gambling related concerns.
We trust this clarifies the matter fully and assists in bringing the complaint to a conclusion.
Kind regards,
MrJones Support Team
Dear Igor,
Thank you for your follow up questions. We are happy to clarify and provide full transparency.
Following a review of the player’s original email from March 2025, we can confirm the following facts:
1. Duration of the self exclusion
The player’s March request did not specify any duration, nor did it explicitly request a permanent self exclusion or irreversible account closure.
When a player requests self exclusion without defining a time frame, MrJones Casino applies a standard predefined temporary self exclusion period, in accordance with its Responsible Gambling Policy and internal system controls. This approach is designed to provide immediate protection while respecting player intent and avoiding imposing permanent restrictions that were not requested.
The length of the exclusion applied was therefore policy driven and system defined, not discretionary.
2. Whether the player was informed it was not permanent
Yes. At the time the restriction was applied, the player was informed that the self exclusion was temporary, and that the account would automatically reopen once the exclusion period expired, unless the player contacted the casino to request an extension or permanent closure.
The player was also advised that they could request a permanent closure at any time during or after the exclusion period.
No such request was received.
3. Reopening of the account
The account was not manually reopened by the casino, nor was any decision taken to override responsible gambling safeguards.
The reopening occurred automatically once the predefined exclusion period expired, as designed under the system and policy in place at the time. This is a standard, non discretionary process applied consistently across all player accounts.
4. Subsequent actions
Once the player contacted the casino again and confirmed ongoing gambling related concerns, the account was immediately and permanently closed. It remains permanently closed and will not be reopened under any circumstances.
5. Refund request
The refund request was reviewed separately and carefully, based on transaction records, timing, and the account status at the time of deposits. As the account was open, unrestricted, and operational in line with policy at the time the deposits were made, the request was declined. This decision was communicated to the player and remains final.
Conclusion
There was no policy breach, negligence, or discretionary reopening of a gambling restricted account.
The initial exclusion was temporary due to the absence of a specified duration or permanent request. The reopening was automatic and system driven. The casino acted appropriately and proportionately at every stage, and applied a permanent closure as soon as the player reiterated gambling related concerns.
We trust this clarifies the matter fully and assists in bringing the complaint to a conclusion.
Kind regards,
MrJones Support Team