Thanks for the detailed follow-up.
At this point, it’s important to separate the issues, because they are starting to overlap in a way that isn’t helpful to you as a player.
Your initial request or as you said, requests, concerned account closure/self-exclusion. However, after marking the complaint as resolved, it seems that you chose to re-engage with the casino, accepted a VIP offer, deposited again, and continued playing. From that moment on, the situation no longer falls under an active self-exclusion or responsible gambling enforcement scenario.
Player protection is not one-sided. Players also carry responsibility for how their situation is communicated. If gambling addiction or loss of control is part of the situation, stating that clearly is one of those responsibilities.
Without such information, the casino has no basis to treat the request as a responsible gambling measure and will handle the player as a regular leisure customer.
This doesn’t invalidate how you feel about the earlier communication, but it does change the context. A player cannot be simultaneously considered self-excluded while actively accepting bonuses, depositing, and engaging with VIP offers.
The cashback issue you’re now raising is a separate matter related to bonus handling and VIP communication, not responsible gambling enforcement. If you wish to pursue that, it should be treated strictly as a bonus dispute, without mixing it with self-exclusion arguments, as that only weakens your position.
Our goal here isn’t to defend casinos but to help players avoid assumptions that work against them later. Clear intent, consistent actions, and keeping issues separated are crucial, especially in situations like this.
I expect more to be investigated in the complaint, of course.