Megapari ignored my addiction, and CG closed my case without a casino reply.

I am sharing my story here because I feel completely left as a hostage by a casino, and the platform I trusted the most to be a fair mediator simply let me down.

On August 19, at 18:20, I sent an email to Megapari requesting a permanent account closure due to a severe gambling addiction, providing all my KYC documents right from the start. Instead of acting on their Responsible Gambling duty, they ignored my cry for help, keeping my account open so I could keep losing money while in a vulnerable state.

The undeniable proof of their bad faith is that days later, when I escalated the situation and pressed them, they managed to completely close my account in just 53 minutes. They always had the technical capability to block me immediately, but intentionally chose not to.

I brought this solid, time-stamped evidence to Casino Guru, fully believing in a fair process. To my absolute disbelief, my complaint was summarily rejected by the mediator without even requiring Megapari to publicly respond, explain themselves, or refute my evidence, if they even could. I wasn't even given the room to defend my case further.

When a platform shields a casino from even having to explain why they ignored a documented addiction request, it leaves a very bitter taste. Honestly, it leaves the strong impression that the resolutions here are carefully selective, rather than strictly impartial.

Has anyone else brought a bulletproof Responsible Gambling case with time-stamped evidence, only to have it shut down to protect the casino's rating?

I understand why you're disappointed with the outcome, especially since you clearly disagree with how your original self-exclusion request should have been treated.

However, I do want to correct the impression that your complaint was closed without consideration simply to protect Megapari or its rating.

Before the complaint was rejected, Veronika asked you several questions about the communication with the casino, the available self-exclusion options, your KYC and the eventual account closure, and you provided detailed answers.

One point became particularly important in the assessment: after Megapari replied to your initial August 19 request, you acknowledged that you did not respond to them again until August 29. Our complaint team considered the casino's response to require further confirmation or clarification and concluded that the self-exclusion process had therefore not been followed through before you continued depositing and playing.

You may disagree with that conclusion, and you're of course free to say so here, but that is the reason shown in the complaint. It wasn't rejected because Megapari refused to answer us.

It's also normal for a casino not to be contacted in every complaint. Our process first involves reviewing the player's information and evidence. If the complaint team believes the case can already be assessed from that information, it can be closed before the casino is invited into the discussion.

The later account closure within 53 minutes is certainly part of your timeline, but I would also be careful about describing it as undeniable proof that the casino intentionally kept your account open so you could lose money. The speed of the later closure doesn't establish their intention by itself.

If you have genuinely new evidence that wasn't available in the complaint — for example, evidence showing additional attempts to confirm the closure between August 19 and August 29 — then that would be relevant information to bring to the complaint team's attention. A closed complaint can be reconsidered if meaningful new information comes to light.

Thank you for taking the time to review these details. While the timestamps and email records contradict the idea that clarification was required from my end, I want to emphasize that I have always held Casino Guru in the highest regard as the most serious, transparent, and trusted player protection authority in the industry. That is precisely why I brought my case here, believing in your commitment to fair mediation.

Here are the factual points based on the official email exchange attached:

Explicit Request on Aug 19 (18:20): My initial email subject was "URGENTE = BLOQUEIO PERMANENTE DA CONTA" (Urgent = Permanent Account Block). In the body, I explicitly stated it was due to "problemas com vícios em jogos de cassino" (gambling addiction problems), provided my account ID, and attached my legal identification documents. Under standard Responsible Gambling duties, explicitly citing addiction mandates an immediate freeze.

The Casino Ignored the Word "Permanent": On Aug 20 (04:19), Megapari did not ask a clarifying question. They sent a generic template suggesting temporary blocks (1 month, 6 months) or deposit limits, completely ignoring my explicit demand for a permanent closure due to harm.

The Ultimate Proof (Aug 29): On Aug 29 at 13:07, Megapari sent an email asking for the block period. Without me sending a single reply or confirmation, they proceeded to close my account at 14:00, just 53 minutes later.

If my account could be permanently closed on Aug 29 without any response from me, it proves beyond doubt that no "secondary confirmation loop" was ever technically required. They possessed all required data and authority on Aug 19, but only acted when public complaints were filed.

I genuinely hope Casino Guru will re-evaluate these clear facts and support me in this case. Reopening this complaint would allow a proper review of a severe violation of duty of care and reinforce the vital protection that players rely on your platform to provide.

I apologize for any mistakes in my English, as I am using a translator to translate my messages.

I have not attached the screenshots and other supporting evidence here because they contain some of my personal information. However, I am more than willing to provide them upon request.

I understand that you disagree with the conclusion and that you interpret the email exchange differently.

However, I think it's important to stay with the reason your complaint was actually closed.

The complaint team reviewed the information and evidence available and concluded that after your initial closure request and the casino's response, you did not continue the communication or take further steps to make sure the self-exclusion request was completed. During that period, you continued to deposit and play.

For that reason, the team determined that the required due diligence for the self-exclusion process had not been completed and that the case did not meet our criteria for a refund. The complaint was therefore closed as unjustified.

The fact that your account was eventually closed quickly on August 29 doesn't change the basis on which the complaint was assessed. It also doesn't by itself establish that the casino intentionally kept your account open earlier.

I understand that this isn't the outcome you hoped for, but the decision wasn't based on Megapari refusing to participate or on protecting the casino's rating. It was based on the circumstances and evidence reviewed by the complaint team.

At this point, I don't think repeatedly reinterpreting the same timeline here on the forum will change that conclusion.😕

Dear Jaroslav,

Thank you for your transparent response and for your time. I completely understand your position as a forum administrator, and I respect your perspective on the matter. I will not extend this debate here in the public forum.

I just want to leave a final clarification regarding the "due diligence" point: my initial email on August 19 (containing my ID, documents, and explicitly stating addiction) was not a random message. I sent it exactly in that format because I had just spoken to Megapari's Live Chat, and their agent explicitly instructed me to send exactly those details to block@megapari.com to have my account permanently closed. By doing exactly what the official casino support instructed me to do, I genuinely believed my due diligence was 100% complete.

I have already submitted the formal request to reopen the complaint through the official system panel, along with all 5 timeline screenshots, so the complaints team can review it privately.

I deeply appreciate the work Casino Guru does for the community. I will patiently wait for the official review of my reopening request through the system.

Best regards.

Alright. I’m glad you also understand our side of the situation.

If you feel there are still some significant details that our complaint team hasn’t considered, then asking for the complaint to be reopened makes sense.

I’ll leave it up to our team to assess everything and decide how to proceed.

In any case, I’ll be keeping my fingers crossed for you.🤞

Dear Jaroslav, you can uncross your fingers. The team officially denied the reopening today.

Apparently, Casino Guru has established a groundbreaking new standard for "player protection": when a licensed casino ignores a declared gambling addict who provided full KYC, it is somehow the addict's fault for not passing the operator's administrative quiz while in crisis.

It is truly magical how Megapari managed to close my account in just 53 minutes on August 29 without a single reply or confirmation from me, yet your complaint team somehow still believes they were "waiting for my clarification" since August 19. The math is simple, but the blind eye turned to it is astonishing.

Thank you for showing the community exactly who this platform really protects. 

Best regards.

I’m sorry to hear that your request to reopen the complaint was denied. I understand this is not the outcome you were hoping for.

At this point, though, the complaint team has already reviewed both the original case and your reopening request, including the additional timeline evidence you submitted through the system. Since the reopening was officially denied, there is nothing more I can add from the forum side that would change the complaint decision.

You are, of course, free to disagree with the conclusion, but I don’t think continuing the same argument here will move the case forward. I also have to reject the idea that the decision was made to protect the casino. The case was assessed according to the information and evidence reviewed by the complaint team.

If you still believe the matter should be pursued further outside Casino Guru, you may consider contacting the relevant authority or seeking independent advice. From our side, the complaint process has now reached its conclusion.