Complaint Regarding Verification of a Gambling Addict

Dear All

I have a complaint against a website for enabling gambling addiction. Despite passing their level 2 second verification successfully with the acceptance of my ID, Casino Guru allowed the casino to take money from a gambling addict once again. I am a gambling addict, and the website is aware of this. How can Casino Guru permit a casino to take money from a gambling addict repeatedly?

Another very serious issue: Casino Guru responded by claiming that I had deposited funds after completing the first level of verification and then edited my information. However, it is extremely concerning that the stake does not allow deposits unless the second level of verification is completed, which involves submitting an ID from both sides. It is alarming that I submitted my ID, and it was successfully verified, allowing me to deposit only after completing both the first and second levels of verification. In my complaint, it is clearly stated that the ID was accepted, and I was granted permission to deposit.

The issue of not verifying the details of the complaint and rejecting it without properly checking the information clearly shows that Casino Guru is only interested in closing the complaint and allowing the website to take money from a gambling addict.

Dear user.

I would like to avoid anything rude, so I hope you won't mind the quotation from your rejected complaint:

"After carefully examining the evidence provided by the casino, it has become clear that there was an attempt to bypass the self-exclusion policy.

During registration, it appears that false personal information was intentionally submitted, which prevented the casino from identifying you as a previously self-excluded player. Following the completion of Level 1 verification, you were able to deposit funds. When Level 2 verification was initiated, your accurate details were provided, which led to the account restriction.

I understand that this situation may be frustrating, and I want to assure you that our decision was not made lightly. However, the evidence strongly supports that the casino acted within its rights to uphold its policies and security measures.

As a result, I regret to inform you that your complaint has been deemed unjustified. I encourage you to take this as an opportunity to reflect and ensure adherence to self-exclusion policies in the future, as they exist to protect players."

The complaint is here 👈

I apologize if our opinions don't align. If you aim to avoid similar disappointment in the future, please focus on providing your own correct personal data only. The point is not to judge anyone but to help vulnerable players prevent similar issues, yet it always includes a minimal level of honesty.

I respect your decision, but there is a clear contradiction. The site does not allow deposits without completing Level 2 verification with an ID,

I did not deposit after completing Level 1 verification, as stated in your response rejecting my complaint. The issue is that you closed the complaint based on incorrect information. Such mistakes can damage credibility. I request a fair review based on accurate facts.

Well, I'm not familiar with verification levels, to be honest, but I understand what you're saying.

So, if you feel something was amiss, you may always ask for the complaint to be reopened; providing this information to the complaint handler is very important.

Not to mention this, however:

"The user created their account using misleading information, specifically submitting an incorrect date of birth (DOB). As outlined in our previous response, referenced by the complainant, this deliberate misrepresentation was a calculated attempt to bypass our security protocols and gain unauthorized access to our platform. As a result, the system did not automatically flag the account at that time. Only three days later, the user updated the initially provided incorrect DOB to the correct one."

Well, this is not a usual course of action if you ask me.