Hello @casinoguru,
I would like to report a case of gross player protection failure that goes beyond a simple technical oversight. It involves the same casino group.
The core of my case:
I permanently blocked myself from one of their brands. However, I was able to register and deposit at several sister casinos (Pistolo, Malina, Amunra, etc.) using the exact same information (name, email, address, date of birth).
Why this is a "systemic failure":
As my attached evidence shows, this group uses a centralized CRM and marketing tool. I receive identical bonus emails and text messages from all these brands at the exact same second.
This leads to two undeniable points in support of my complaint:
1. Data Consistency: The system unambiguously identifies me as the same user (PII - Personally Identifiable Information) in order to send me advertising.
2. Willful Negligence: If the system is capable of synchronizing my data across brands for marketing purposes, it is technically also capable of using this data for the self-exclusion filter. The fact that this doesn't happen is not a technical error, but a deliberate circumvention of player protection. A KYC check that only allows the deposit but ignores an existing exclusion within the same system is unethical and violates the licensing requirements for addiction prevention.
My demand:
I demand a full refund of all deposits made to the sister brands after my initial suspension. Since the operator proved through their marketing emails that they had me on file, accepting my deposits under these circumstances was unlawful.
I ask the CasinoGuru team to review this case from the perspective of "Cross-Brand Player Protection".


Your case is described in a comprehensible way, however, a clear regulatory distinction must be made here.
The brands you mentioned do not have a German license under the Interstate Treaty on Gambling (GlüStV 2021) and are therefore not connected to the German LUGAS blocking system , which is mandatory for providers licensed in Germany.
That means:
Your argument regarding "data consistency" (coordinated advertising campaigns) is technically sound, but it doesn't automatically establish a legal obligation for group-wide blocking. Marketing databases and compliance/KYC systems are regulatory separate entities.
Whether there is a violation of licensing requirements depends solely on the regulations of the respective licensing authority – not on German player protection law if no German license exists.
The topic of "cross-brand player protection" is absolutely debatable from a consumer protection perspective – however, it is usually only legally enforceable if:
This does not usually result in an automatic obligation to refund.
You will soon be redirected to the casino’s website. Please wait. If you use some ad blocking software, please check its settings.