Subject: Supabet – Failure to Act After Withdrawal of Consent and Regulator Inaction
I have been struggling with gambling addiction since March 2025, and Supabet’s conduct during this time is a textbook example of how operators exploit vulnerable players instead of protecting them.
On March 8, 2025, I submitted a written request for my Supabet account to be closed and suspended for one year. That request was clear and unambiguous: I was experiencing harm and no longer consented to gamble. Despite that, Supabet kept my account open for more than six months, continued to incentivize me with bonuses and promotions, and accepted over $80,704.83 CAD in deposits, all after I had explicitly withdrawn my consent.
These were not discretionary entertainment deposits. They were made during a period when I was trying to stop, in a state of financial desperation, and should never have been accepted. Operators often try to shift the blame onto players by pointing to continued gambling behaviour, but that argument ignores the reality of addiction. My continued deposits were not evidence of consent. They were evidence of the very harm responsible gambling policies are meant to address.
In September 2025, I even submitted a formal self-exclusion through the Anjouan regulator, and yet Supabet still allowed me to gamble into October. That means both the operator and the regulator were aware of my situation, and neither took immediate steps to protect me. Operators do not take these issues seriously, and they make a mess of what should be a simple situation: when a player says they want to stop, the account should be closed and the acceptance of further funds should end immediately.
This case is not about a gambling loss. It is about a company knowingly accepting funds after consent was withdrawn, ignoring multiple clear indicators of harm, and deliberately encouraging continued gambling during a period of vulnerability. It is also about a regulator that, despite being notified, failed to intervene in a timely and effective way.
My question to Casino.Guru and to the industry as a whole is this: at what point does the duty to act begin? Is it not triggered the moment a player requests exclusion and communicates harm? Is it not reinforced when the regulator is informed? If not then, when?
I am seeking the repayment of deposits accepted after March 8, 2025, and a formal acknowledgment of wrongdoing. If Supabet refuses to resolve this directly, I will escalate this matter further, including pursuing legal action if necessary.
This situation illustrates a systemic problem. Operators continue to profit from harm while regulators delay or remain silent. Players like me are left financially devastated, despite doing everything in our power to stop.
Subject: Supabet – Failure to Act After Withdrawal of Consent and Regulator Inaction
I have been struggling with gambling addiction since March 2025, and Supabet’s conduct during this time is a textbook example of how operators exploit vulnerable players instead of protecting them.
On March 8, 2025, I submitted a written request for my Supabet account to be closed and suspended for one year. That request was clear and unambiguous: I was experiencing harm and no longer consented to gamble. Despite that, Supabet kept my account open for more than six months, continued to incentivize me with bonuses and promotions, and accepted over $80,704.83 CAD in deposits, all after I had explicitly withdrawn my consent.
These were not discretionary entertainment deposits. They were made during a period when I was trying to stop, in a state of financial desperation, and should never have been accepted. Operators often try to shift the blame onto players by pointing to continued gambling behaviour, but that argument ignores the reality of addiction. My continued deposits were not evidence of consent. They were evidence of the very harm responsible gambling policies are meant to address.
In September 2025, I even submitted a formal self-exclusion through the Anjouan regulator, and yet Supabet still allowed me to gamble into October. That means both the operator and the regulator were aware of my situation, and neither took immediate steps to protect me. Operators do not take these issues seriously, and they make a mess of what should be a simple situation: when a player says they want to stop, the account should be closed and the acceptance of further funds should end immediately.
This case is not about a gambling loss. It is about a company knowingly accepting funds after consent was withdrawn, ignoring multiple clear indicators of harm, and deliberately encouraging continued gambling during a period of vulnerability. It is also about a regulator that, despite being notified, failed to intervene in a timely and effective way.
My question to Casino.Guru and to the industry as a whole is this: at what point does the duty to act begin? Is it not triggered the moment a player requests exclusion and communicates harm? Is it not reinforced when the regulator is informed? If not then, when?
I am seeking the repayment of deposits accepted after March 8, 2025, and a formal acknowledgment of wrongdoing. If Supabet refuses to resolve this directly, I will escalate this matter further, including pursuing legal action if necessary.
This situation illustrates a systemic problem. Operators continue to profit from harm while regulators delay or remain silent. Players like me are left financially devastated, despite doing everything in our power to stop.