I am formally escalating this matter. The statements made by Neon54 do not align with the actual timeline, evidence, or the responsible gambling obligations required under your licence.
1. The timeline you provided is not accurate
I contacted Neon54 multiple times through webchat, both before and after my formal self-exclusion email sent on 27 October at 2:37am.
I have:
Screenshots of the live chat where I requested account closure and responsible gambling assistance
The initial self-exclusion email
Several follow-up emails over the next days
No responses from the casino during that period
Full access to my account the entire time, including the ability to deposit and place bets
Bonus and promotional offers sent to me during this period
This was not the first time I had asked Neon54 for responsible gambling help or closure, and my requests were still ignored.
Your claim that the account was closed "within 24 hours" is provably incorrect.
2. Neon54 is not meeting its responsible gambling obligations under its Curaçao licence
Neon54 operates under the Antillephone Curaçao licence 8048/JAZ.
Under that licence, the responsible gambling requirements state:
A self-exclusion request must trigger immediate action
Account access should be suspended right away or within a reasonable, short window
Operators may not continue to accept bets or deposits after a player declares harm, asks for closure, or requests exclusion
Operators must not send marketing or bonus offers after receiving a request for exclusion
Operators must maintain an effective and accessible self-exclusion system
Continuing to allow gambling after receiving a responsible gambling request is a violation of due-care obligations
These requirements can be found in Antillephone’s Responsible Gaming Framework and in guidance from the Curaçao Gaming Control Board. What occurred in my case clearly breaches those standards.
3. Your Terms and Conditions do not override responsible gambling laws
Quoting clauses such as "no refunds after betting" or "you confirm you do not have an addiction" is not a defence when the casino has already been placed on notice about gambling harm.
Once a player asks for exclusion or declares issues with gambling, the operator has a shared responsibility to prevent further losses. Responsible gambling obligations override general T&Cs.
4. I was encouraged to continue gambling after my exclusion request
Even after I asked for self-exclusion:
My account stayed open
Bonuses were sent to me
Marketing emails continued
Deposits were still accepted
Bets were still accepted
This is extremely serious and directly contradicts responsible gambling requirements.
5. If this matter is not resolved, I will escalate it to the licensing authority and proceed with formal discovery
Unless a reasonable settlement is reached, I will be escalating the matter to:
Curaçao Gaming Control Board (complaints@gamingcontrolboard.org)
Antillephone Licence 8048/JAZ complaints (complaints@curacao-egaming.com)
Casino Guru’s ADR service
If necessary, I will also take legal action. During discovery, Neon54 will be required to disclose:
Internal responsible gambling logs
All timestamps of my requests
Chat transcripts
Staff actions regarding my exclusion request
Any marketing and bonus activity sent after my request
Internal policy documents
Any internal assessments related to my case
Any prior similar cases
These disclosures will show clearly whether responsible gambling protocols were followed.
6. Requested resolution
I am requesting:
A refund or partial refund of all losses that occurred after my first responsible gambling request on 27 October at 2:37am
Confirmation of permanent self-exclusion across all associated brands
Confirmation of the casino’s licensing and mediation authority
If this is not resolved promptly, I will escalate it fully through the regulator and court processes.
I am prepared to provide all evidence privately to Casino Guru upon request.
I am formally escalating this matter. The statements made by Neon54 do not align with the actual timeline, evidence, or the responsible gambling obligations required under your licence.
1. The timeline you provided is not accurate
I contacted Neon54 multiple times through webchat, both before and after my formal self-exclusion email sent on 27 October at 2:37am.
I have:
Screenshots of the live chat where I requested account closure and responsible gambling assistance
The initial self-exclusion email
Several follow-up emails over the next days
No responses from the casino during that period
Full access to my account the entire time, including the ability to deposit and place bets
Bonus and promotional offers sent to me during this period
This was not the first time I had asked Neon54 for responsible gambling help or closure, and my requests were still ignored.
Your claim that the account was closed "within 24 hours" is provably incorrect.
2. Neon54 is not meeting its responsible gambling obligations under its Curaçao licence
Neon54 operates under the Antillephone Curaçao licence 8048/JAZ.
Under that licence, the responsible gambling requirements state:
A self-exclusion request must trigger immediate action
Account access should be suspended right away or within a reasonable, short window
Operators may not continue to accept bets or deposits after a player declares harm, asks for closure, or requests exclusion
Operators must not send marketing or bonus offers after receiving a request for exclusion
Operators must maintain an effective and accessible self-exclusion system
Continuing to allow gambling after receiving a responsible gambling request is a violation of due-care obligations
These requirements can be found in Antillephone’s Responsible Gaming Framework and in guidance from the Curaçao Gaming Control Board. What occurred in my case clearly breaches those standards.
3. Your Terms and Conditions do not override responsible gambling laws
Quoting clauses such as "no refunds after betting" or "you confirm you do not have an addiction" is not a defence when the casino has already been placed on notice about gambling harm.
Once a player asks for exclusion or declares issues with gambling, the operator has a shared responsibility to prevent further losses. Responsible gambling obligations override general T&Cs.
4. I was encouraged to continue gambling after my exclusion request
Even after I asked for self-exclusion:
My account stayed open
Bonuses were sent to me
Marketing emails continued
Deposits were still accepted
Bets were still accepted
This is extremely serious and directly contradicts responsible gambling requirements.
5. If this matter is not resolved, I will escalate it to the licensing authority and proceed with formal discovery
Unless a reasonable settlement is reached, I will be escalating the matter to:
Curaçao Gaming Control Board (complaints@gamingcontrolboard.org)
Antillephone Licence 8048/JAZ complaints (complaints@curacao-egaming.com)
Casino Guru’s ADR service
If necessary, I will also take legal action. During discovery, Neon54 will be required to disclose:
Internal responsible gambling logs
All timestamps of my requests
Chat transcripts
Staff actions regarding my exclusion request
Any marketing and bonus activity sent after my request
Internal policy documents
Any internal assessments related to my case
Any prior similar cases
These disclosures will show clearly whether responsible gambling protocols were followed.
6. Requested resolution
I am requesting:
A refund or partial refund of all losses that occurred after my first responsible gambling request on 27 October at 2:37am
Confirmation of permanent self-exclusion across all associated brands
Confirmation of the casino’s licensing and mediation authority
If this is not resolved promptly, I will escalate it fully through the regulator and court processes.
I am prepared to provide all evidence privately to Casino Guru upon request.