Self-exclusion not enforced – still able to deposit and play ✅

Hi,

I would like to respond to the operator’s position, as it does not reflect my experience.

After I clearly requested permanent self-exclusion, I was still able to access the account, deposit funds, and continue playing. In my understanding, this should not be possible once consent to gambling services has been withdrawn.

The operator claims this happened due to new account creation, but according to their own rules, only one account per player is allowed and should be linked through personal and payment data. This suggests a failure of their control systems rather than intentional misuse.

At the time, there were no clear self-exclusion tools in the account. Everything had to be done through support, and the process was inconsistent and unreliable. I received different information from different agents, and the type of restriction was never clearly explained.

My complaints were not answered in a substantive way, and I was not given access to any evidence used to justify the operator’s position. Instead, I was referred to a closed complaint handled without transparency.

The permanent restriction was only applied much later, after repeated requests and escalation.

Has anyone experienced a similar situation or can advise what else I can do at this stage?

For clarity, this experience specifically concerns my account with Vavada casino.

Hello, I understand your frustration. Just let me add the complaint link so the others can form their own opinion too. The complaint is here 👈

From our point, there are several points that lead to the final conclusion and that may help every player to avoid similar situation:

"Vavada Casino is semi-anonymous

As such, standard self-exclusion rules do not apply here. Casino is unable to properly block you from creating new account, as all that is needed is a new e-mail address, which can be created within few minutes. Casino can only prevent you from re-registration using the same e-mail and phone number. This is far from ideal, but it is the price for being semi-anonymous.

Avoidance of self-exclusion

Creating new e-mail for your secondary account, as well as requesting complete credential wipe shows an intent to avoid any kind of ban and self-exclusion measures that may be in effect. If there is no information about you in the database, there is no way to prevent it being re-used. As an EU citizen you are well aware of the GDPR and what it entails, and since every single one of your account closures has been accompanied with a request for complete data deletion, personally I have a hard time believing this was not intentional.

Lack of reasonable effort

At no point I have been made aware of you trying to learn how to get properly self-excluded from Vavada Casino and stay self-excluded. There were no questions regarding you being able to create multiple accounts and how to prevent it in the future, you have never asked to get all your payment methods blocked, never inquired about how the self-exclusion actually works and how to make it work for yourself.

The last e-mails and phone number used to create your accounts have been blocked, as well as the payment method you have used. There is nothing more the semi-anonymous casino can do and I would strongly recommend installing free app BetBlocker (https://betblocker.org/pl/) onto your computer and mobile device, to keep you safe from online gambling sites while browsing the internet. It's free, and for maximum protection it is recommended to have a family member or a friend to set up the password in your stead. Also, I would advise to block all the mobile numbers and e-mail addresses that are sending you promotional materials."

If you ever need guidance on how to communicate or perform a working self-exclusion request, please do not hesitate to reach out. I'll gladly help you.

I would like to comment comprehensively on the position presented, because in my opinion it does not take into account the full context, facts or chronology of events, and in many places it is based on assumptions about intentions instead of actual evidence.

First of all, I would like to emphasize that my goal from the beginning was solely to stop the game and effectively block access – not to circumvent it.

1. Repeated attempts at exclusion and lack of effective response

I have contacted support (chat, email) many times with requests to block my account and stop playing.

I received responses that certain actions were "not possible", I was transferred between departments, and reports were ineffective.

The emails were also provided in the complaint, so the claim that I did not attempt to self-exclude is not supported by the evidence.

2. No self-exclusion tools available

There was no self-exclusion button available on my account as mentioned on the website.

The entire process was carried out exclusively through support – without a form, clear selection options or clear confirmation of the blocking implementation.

3. Inconsistent information from support

I was receiving conflicting information regarding the type of block, its duration, and the status of the data.

This indicates a lack of a uniform procedure and undermines the effectiveness of the player protection system.

4. Interrupted time lock

In mid-September, I requested a block until October 1st, with the clear stipulation that it could not be lifted earlier.

Despite this, it was removed before the deadline.

During this time, the data was not deleted and the account functioned normally, which undermines the argument about its impact on the situation.

5. Data and lack of anonymity

I consistently used the same personal data, phone number (BLIK), payment methods, device and IP.

One of the accounts was verified with an ID, and at least one account had the same email address and phone number.

This does not indicate an attempt to circumvent the system.

6. Contradiction in the operator's argument

The claim that it was impossible to link accounts is contradicted by the fact that an effective block based on personal and payment data was later implemented.

I did not provide an additional declaration, and the portal did not have payment data, which raises the question of the basis for the subsequent connection.

7. Data deletion

The deletion of data was solely related to the desire to stop playing, not to circumvent the system.

I was not informed that this might affect my ability to re-register or weaken my protection.

Additionally, the regulations indicate the obligation to store data for a specified period.

8. Block only after escalation

The effective block was implemented only after the matter escalated and an external portal was involved, and not after previous requests.

9. Complaints and lack of response

The complaint of February 10 (4+4 weeks) remained unanswered.

ADR (January 24, up to 90 days) also resulted in no further communication.

In practice, there is no effective path to resolving a dispute.

10. Lack of access to evidence

The operator claims to have provided the evidence to the portal, but it has not been made available to me as a party to the proceedings, which makes it impossible to verify it and fully respond to it.

11. Regulations and their availability

The regulations were accepted automatically during registration, without any real possibility of fully and consciously familiarizing oneself with their content.

12. The Key Problem – Assumption-Based Assessment

The entire case ignores the chronology of events, the ineffectiveness of the blockades, the lack of information and the lack of response to reports and complaints.

Instead, it was assumed that I had acted deliberately, even though the facts presented indicated consistent attempts at permanent exclusion.

Summary

My actions were consistent and stemmed from a genuine desire to stop playing.

On the operator's side, there were inconsistent procedures, lack of tools, lack of information, ineffective blocking, lack of response to complaints and lack of transparency regarding evidence.

Therefore, I believe the case should be reassessed based on the facts and full documentation, rather than assumptions about intent.

I understand your point, but I think there's some important context missing.

From the beginning, I tried to stop playing completely and requested self-exclusion several times, but the process was unclear and inconsistent.

Despite this, I still had access to my account and was able to play, and the time ban was even lifted earlier than it should have been.

From my perspective, this shows a lack of effective security measures rather than an attempt to circumvent them.

Additionally, the whole situation raises my doubts, especially since during the case there were concerns about the level of player protection, and after the intervention, changes began to be introduced.

Well, if you are convinced about this, I would suggest asking for the complaint to be reopened. I'm not saying that none of the evidence didn't play a role, but the explanation provided in the complaint still makes sense to me. However, since I have not been part of your complaint like you have, this course of action is my best advice.

There are at least 4 different perspectives:

1) regulatory: no clear instructions officially provided by regulators

2) business practices: separate and different for casino groups, owners, brands, markets,...

3) players approach: intentions, efforts, steps taken, cooperation,...

4) casino practices: intentions, rules, procedures, efforts, steps taken, cooperation,...

Therefore, all sides' perspectives are taken into account, and the context plays a significant role. I truly have no desire to delve deeper because of what I already said. Such rejected cases are always not just black and white and we have a focus on what is provable and based on what evidence we can push the casino into refunding the player. That does not always align with the player's perspective.

I respect what you say, but I now have little concrete to add to it. Go for the reopen request if you like the idea, please.

Once more, I hear what you're saying, but since there is no formally declared player protection scale, especially for semi-anonymous casinos, every situation is different and considered in line with the context and findings.

Thus, the efforts on both sides play a significant role, and nothing is purely good or completely bad on either end.

I would go for the repen request and mention the latest events you just described. As far as I can assume, the complaint was closed more than four months ago. Do you still play in the casino, have you tried the suggested steps to stay away? We are possibly talking about development after the complaint closure, which, of course, may change perspective. However, here on the forum, such a step can't be taken.

Thanks for your response, I understand your point.

To clarify – I am no longer playing and I’ve taken additional steps to stay away (including using blocking tools on my devices), so my intention to stop has been consistent.

What still concerns me is that the self-exclusion process itself didn’t work properly at the time, and some of the issues I described only became clearer after the complaint was already closed.

Based on what you said, I will consider submitting a reopen request and include these additional developments.

Could you please clarify where exactly I should request the reopening, and whether there is still a realistic chance for the case to be reconsidered?

Also, just to understand the process better – was my complaint reviewed in full detail, or mainly based on the evidence provided by the casino?

I'm so glad you do not play there.

Now I understand that we have both been talking about different time events so I agree that retrospectively it was confusing. Thank you for helping untangle it.

Please access your complaint and look for the button "reopen"; if it is not there, I suggest sending an email to the complaint mediator. If I may offer a suggestion, please provide details of any findings or occurrences that occurred after the case closure. A timeline will help the mediator assess the nature of the reopen request.

When it comes to the last question, the decision was made based on every piece of information gathered from you and the casino alike.

Thank you for your response, I appreciate the clarification.

I checked my complaint and I don’t seem to have the "reopen" option available. Could you please advise what would be the best way to proceed in this situation?

Also, if contacting the mediator directly is required, I would appreciate guidance on the correct way to do it.

I will prepare a clear timeline with the additional events that occurred after the case was closed, as you suggested.

Hello,

I checked your situation with colleagues who are familiar with your complaint and your previous attempts to reopen the case, just to be sure I’m guiding you correctly. For example, I did not know that this particular instance was not the first reopen request you did.

Based on that, there really aren’t any further steps we can take from our side.

Looking at the full history, including repeated self-exclusions, new registrations, and requests to remove your data, this is not a standard case where the self-exclusion system failed. These steps make it very difficult for the casino to recognize and block you again.

Because of that, the case wouldn’t lead to a different outcome even if it was reopened.

If you wish to take your complaint further, you may present your case to the licensing authority. From my side, there’s nothing more I can add here. I'm sorry.

I accidentally deleted my previous answer and now I can't add the full, prepared version because Reddit seems to be blocking it as a duplicate, so I'll keep it short for now.

The main problem is that the self-exclusion system did not work properly in my case - I repeatedly requested to be blocked, but in practice it did not work as it should, and even the time block was removed earlier.

I'll try to post a more complete explanation later.

I would like to address the decision because, in my opinion, the case contains significant ambiguities that require re-examination. I also feel that the entire matter was assessed more through the prism of my "intentions" than the actual events and available evidence.

I understand that you did not handle this case from the beginning, but that is precisely why it is difficult for me to understand why, with so many uncertainties, there is no possibility of re-analyzing it in more detail.

My biggest problem is that much of the responsibility has been shifted onto me, despite the way the casino system operates. Specifically, its semi-anonymous nature and lack of effective self-exclusion tools.

At the time, there was no self-exclusion button or form—everything was handled through support. Communication was inconsistent, responses often varied, and I received no clear confirmation that the bans had actually been implemented.

Additionally, the temporary ban, which was supposed to be irrevocable, was lifted earlier. Despite numerous requests, I had no real way to effectively exclude myself as an individual, suggesting that in practice, the ban was applied to the account, not the user.

I would like to clarify one important issue.

The regulations indicate not only the principle of one account for one data, but also the obligation to store them for a certain period of time.

In this context, it is difficult to understand how one can simultaneously argue that it is impossible to link accounts due to data deletion.

In my case, I used the same personal details, payment methods and phone number, and one of the accounts was even verified with an ID.

Another issue is the lack of transparency throughout the entire process. The casino didn't publicly present coherent arguments, I didn't have access to the evidence on which their decision was based, and my response to their position wasn't published. At one point, I also had no real opportunity to address the allegations.

At the complaint stage, the situation was similar. The casino refused to provide the evidence, claiming it had been provided to the portal. Despite submitting a complaint in September and again in February, I did not receive a substantive response within the stipulated timeframe. Despite confirming the matter, the ADR (CADRE) also failed to respond within 90 days, and the regulator does not, in practice, review individual complaints.

As a result, as a player, I have no real opportunity to verify the decision or have an effective appeal path.

I also disagree with the assessment based on "intent." My actions – repeated requests to block, attempts to self-exclude, and using the same data – indicate a desire to quit the game.

It is difficult to find it logical that a person who wants to continue playing repeatedly requests bans, sets time-based bans and uses the same data that allows them to be identified.

Therefore, the key question remains unanswered – if it was not possible to link accounts before, how was it possible after some time to effectively block me as a person, without providing new data?

To me, this indicates an inconsistency in the system rather than a change in my intention.

Finally, I have the impression that the responsibility for the lack of effective security measures has been transferred to the player, even though the operator is responsible for their implementation and operation.

Additionally, taking into account all the ambiguities and discrepancies pointed out earlier, I believe that the case should be reopened and analyzed in a more detailed and transparent manner.

Thanks for taking the time to explain your position in detail.

The main issue here is that your argument is built around how the system should have behaved, rather than what actually happened in practice.

Self-exclusion and account restrictions are indeed the operator’s responsibility to enforce — but they are not technically foolproof in real time, especially in environments where accounts can still be created before a match is detected.

This leads to an important distinction:

a system failing to immediately block a new account is not the same as permission to create one.

You mention using the same personal details as evidence that you were acting transparently. However, using the same data does not prevent multiple accounts from being created — it only makes them easier to link retrospectively. That’s an enforcement mechanism, not a preventive one.

The core of the case is therefore not whether the system had limitations, but whether multiple accounts were created and used despite previous restrictions.

Your requests for self-exclusion and the inconsistencies in support communication are relevant and should be acknowledged. However, they do not override the standard rule of one account per user, nor do they invalidate actions taken across multiple accounts once they are identified.

As for the later successful linking of accounts, this does not necessarily require new data. It can result from delayed verification, internal reviews, or risk checks that were not completed at the earlier stage.

So while there may have been gaps in communication and process transparency, those gaps alone are not sufficient to reassess the outcome unless there is evidence that the accounts were incorrectly linked or that the rules were applied inconsistently in your specific case.

I understand the explanation provided, but I still find it difficult to accept that the outcome of this case is based more on assumptions about my intentions than on actual facts and inconsistencies.

I'm not addressing how the system should work in theory - I'm pointing out how it actually worked for me and failed in practice.

There remain several key contradictions that have not been resolved:

First, the data issue: The casino's terms and conditions indicate that player data should be retained for a certain period of time, yet at the same time there is the argument that accounts could not be linked because they were deleted.

At the same time, I used the same personal details, phone number and payment methods, and one of the accounts was verified with an ID document.

Despite this, I was able to make deposits and use my account for an extended period of time. It wasn't just a matter of a short delay—it lasted for weeks.

Secondly: If it was not possible to link accounts before, how was it possible to effectively block me as a person later, without me providing new data?

This is a direct contradiction to the previous explanation.

Third: The temporary ban, which was supposed to be irreversible, was lifted earlier. This issue is unrelated to multiple accounts and directly relates to responsible gaming practices.

Additionally, there are serious doubts about transparency:

I didn't have access to the evidence used to assess the case. The casino refused to provide it, indicating that it had been provided solely to the portal. My complaints were not resolved within the stipulated timeframes. The ADR did not respond within 90 days. In practice, the regulator does not review individual complaints.

As a result, as a player, I have no real opportunity to verify my decisions or defend my position.

At the same time, I repeatedly requested self-exclusion, but the appropriate tools did not exist - there was no button or form, and the entire process was based solely on inconsistent communication with support.

Given the above, I find it difficult to accept a situation where responsibility is primarily attributed to the player, while inconsistencies in data, rule enforcement, and responsible gaming mechanisms are not assessed equally.

My actions—repeated ban requests, short-term activity, and using the same data—indicate an attempt to stop playing, not bypass the system.

At this stage, my doubts no longer concern individual issues, but rather the overall reliability, transparency and consistency of the way this case was handled.

I would also like to emphasize that my position is based on available evidence, including communication records, account activity, and previously submitted materials. I can reiterate or add to specific elements as needed.

If the inability to link accounts was previously due to system limitations or data deletion, on what basis was it later possible to clearly identify me as a user and apply an effective block without new input data?

I understand your position.

However, at this point we are going in circles.

The points you are raising here have already been addressed multiple times, both earlier in this thread and previously during the case, and with more than two reopen requests. Repeating them in different wording does make the situation actual and factual.

You continue to focus on system behavior, inconsistencies, and what should or should not have happened on the operator’s side. These are valid general concerns, but they do not change the precise facts of the case or its outcome.

As such, there is no basis for further discussion even on the forum.

If you wish to ask questions, the appropriate next step would be to contact the relevant licensing authority or ADR, who can formally review the operator’s processes and evidence.

From my side, the case is considered closed. I appreciate your understanding.

Thank you for your answer.

However, I would like to point out that I have not received a specific answer to any of my key questions – both during the complaint and in this discussion.

My concerns relate to specific inconsistencies in this matter, not general considerations about the operation of the system.

In particular:

– contradictions between the obligation to store data and the argument about their deletion and the impossibility of linking accounts,

– the inability to link accounts for a longer period of time, while at the same time effectively blocking me as a person without new data,

– removal of the time block that was supposed to be irrevocable,

– lack of access to evidence and the possibility of referring to it,

– lack of response to complaints and a real appeal path (ADR, regulator).

None of the above issues have been substantively explained – instead, the decision is based primarily on the interpretation of my intentions and the fact that I have multiple accounts.

Additionally, from my perspective, there was a lack of transparency in the entire process, and the issues of GDPR and data deletion were used as an argument that does not explain the above contradictions.

I'd also like to address the issue of addiction. Regardless of whether it was explicitly named or not, it's clear from the course of events that I made repeated attempts to limit my gameplay through bans and requests for exclusion. In my opinion, this means that even if this aspect had been formally addressed, it wouldn't have changed the course of events—I could still have created additional accounts and continued playing. This undermines the effectiveness of the mechanisms employed and the rationale for assigning me sole responsibility.

Regarding the decision itself, I have the impression that it does not fully take into account the facts and evidence I presented, which leads to a one-sided assessment of the situation.

Referring me back to the ADR or regulator is not a viable solution, as I have previously described.

At the same time, I have additional materials and evidence that have not been analyzed.

At this stage, I find it difficult to believe that the case was dealt with in a fully fair and transparent manner.

I leave the above issues to the judgment of those reading this matter.

I would like to clarify one more technical issue.

After receiving information that I should be blocked/excluded as a user, access to the account and the ability to make deposits remained active for a certain period of time.

Can you explain how this was possible if the exclusion was intended to apply at the user level?

Well, I’ll be direct here, as the discussion has now moved well beyond the scope of the original complaint.

The repeated stream of technical questions and reworded contradictions no longer helps clarify the matter. The key points of this case have already been reviewed and explained multiple times, both during the complaint process and in this thread. Repeating them in different forms does not create new evidence or grounds for reassessment.

During the review, it also became clear that a significant part of the difficulty in this case stemmed from the contradictory nature of your own actions and requests. On one hand, you describe repeated attempts to self-exclude and stop gambling. On the other, there were also requests and actions that reduced the operator’s ability to identify, retain, or connect account data. Those positions are clearly in conflict.

For that reason, it is not reasonable to place sole responsibility on the operator for the final outcome. Based on everything reviewed, I did not find sufficient grounds to hold the casino responsible in the way you suggest, and that conclusion has already been communicated.

At this stage, there is nothing further to add on the forum. If you wish to challenge the operator’s handling, the appropriate route is to raise the matter with the relevant licensing authority, as was suggested multiple times.

Any further posts that simply reframe the same questions or continue this circular discussion will be removed so the thread remains constructive and on topic.