Mega Casino - general discussion (page 2)

What seems to be happening here is a mixing of different levels of the issue, and that’s where the misunderstanding comes from.

There is a difference between:

• how a situation feels to the player,
• what is ethically expected from a casino,
• and what can actually be established and proven in a complaint process.
• 
  

The complaint was not rejected because the question was "ill-intentioned" or because player protection is being denied. It was rejected because, based on the information provided, there was no verifiable evidence that the casino prevented a withdrawal or explicitly conditioned account closure on losing the balance. What could be established was that the balance was played and lost.

General statements about how things "cannot work in Spain" are not the same as demonstrating that this is what happened in this specific case. In any complaint procedure, claims have to be supported by concrete facts or documentation, regardless of the country involved.

Regarding account closure: in practice, casinos usually distinguish between a regular account closure and an immediate block due to problem gambling. In urgent cases, an instant block may come with consequences for an active balance. This is not a moral judgment, but a practical and procedural reality, and it exists precisely because health and harm prevention sometimes take priority over funds.

That does not mean the situation is pleasant or easy to accept. It only means that without clear proof that the casino acted unlawfully or misleadingly, there is very limited room for intervention. Asking questions is fair, but disagreement with the outcome does not automatically mean the explanation is invented or generalized.

Since I have the chat where they clearly say that if I close the account I lose my balance, isn't that clear proof?

I request a closure and they lie to me saying that I lose the balance; in Spain that is illegal, as stated in their rules.

If that's not enough for you, well, look... it's clear who you want to defend.

Hello, perhaps we misunderstand each other. Let's put aside what is or is not legal in Spain, because this casino is not licensed in Spain, as far as I can tell. Can you maybe confirm that?

"Since I have the chat where they clearly say that if I close the account I lose my balance, isn't that clear proof?"

Proof is unnecessary because the casino rules state the voidance, correct? I was trying to explain that, from a practical standpoint, there are two options:

1) The player is okay and can wait for the payout to close the account afterwards.

2) If the player is not okay and is experiencing gambling issues, the account must be closed immediately, regardless of the remaining balance. Health and preventing further losses take priority over the account balance.

It is inconvenient, yet the addicted player is very likely to lose the money anyway and thus should be restricted from entering the site immediately. There is no middle ground.

Thus, if you lose the balance, there is sadly no space for confronting the casino. This is basically why my colleagues rejected your complaint request, I reckon.

In any case, I suggest you only play in casinos that are licensed in your jurisdiction. If you do so, you may then discuss the approach to problem gambling at casinos with your national license provider or lawyer.

Let's see, of course it's licensed in Spain, and how am I going to close my account if I lose my entire balance?

I requested a closure and they lied to me about the loss of my balance; according to the rules to which this casino and its operator adhere, that is illegal.

Hello, I'll address just the facts here, if you don't mind.

As suggested, the account closure request must always be clearly composed and reflect one of those two options clearly.

Simply put: you have to choose the more suitable from both options.

1) If you just want to close the account, withdraw all funds and then ask for the account closure.

2) If you are at risk of problem gambling and feel like losing control, ask for a permanent account closure due to gambling issues. Your account will be closed as soon as possible, yet the balance may be voided. The point of the second option is to prevent struggling players from further harm.

Let me know how it went with DGOJ, please.

Thank you for your response.

It is necessary to clarify several essential points from the Spanish regulatory framework, which is applicable in this case, since the operator is registered in the records of the Directorate General for Gambling Regulation (DGOJ) and, therefore, subject to Spanish gambling and player protection regulations.

In Spain, the operator has specific legal obligations, including:

Duty to provide truthful, clear and non-misleading information to the player.

Duty to actively protect the player when he requests closure or limitation measures.

Prohibition of inducing error regarding the economic consequences of exercising protection rights.

Duty to offer real and correct alternatives to protect the balance when the player expresses a clear desire to close or restrict.

In my case, the operator's agent provided objectively incorrect information, stating that closing the account would result in the loss of the available balance. This statement is not in accordance with Spanish regulations and was decisive in preventing me from taking any effective measures to protect my balance at that time.

The core of the problem is not whether the balance was subsequently played or whether there were different "types" of closure, but rather:

The operator gave incorrect information about the consequences of the closure.

That information prevented the adoption of a protective decision, leaving the balance exposed.

The responsibility for providing accurate information rests solely with the operator, not the player.

It is also worth noting that the DGOJ has sanctioned operators on multiple occasions for conduct consisting of information deficiencies, non-compliance with responsible gambling regulations and lack of effective player protection in similar situations.

In Spanish regulatory practice, it is not uncommon for operators to opt for compensatory solutions or agreements with the player before imposing sanctions when malpractice is found, precisely to mitigate the sanctioning and reputational impact.

My claim is not based on a subsequent confiscation of the balance, but on the deprivation of the exercise of a right of protection due to poor information practices, a matter expressly regulated and punishable in Spain.

For this reason, the matter is currently being processed by the competent regulatory authority (DGOJ).

Sure, it's beneficial to discuss that with the licensing authority. Please share any progress made.