Question about Gambling websites with Curaçao license using incorrect Merchant Category code (page 876)

Can't say that I am surprised. The complaint is being refused properly stating that the bank has acted correctly.

The way to walk this process is to ask your bank for a chargeback for not receiving goods by the dodgy merchant. Many have posted here how to raise chargebacks, if you acknowledge to your bank that you made a deposit to a casino the bank simply is not allowed to raise a chargeback in most cases despite the MCC code and reason.

Since the casino is abusing the MCC code to allow deposits to its casino without being flagged and possibly blocked, the consumer has to track down the merchant and contact this asking for a refund due to a lack of receiving goods. As most merchants don't respond you have clear evidence that you tried to solve this without success asking the bank to intervene and raise a chargeback.

The only problem is that given this topic having 2.6million views, not only players and casinos will find this topic but banks too that are likely not happy to put effort and work in this process. I don't read all posts but where last year and 2023 most merchants cooperated and refunded the money instantly they now are aware of this work around and also are prepared to fight a chargeback until some way hoping the consumer/player lose them. The merchants however, wont speak about gambling transactions as that would lead to a suspension of their merchant agreement with the card schemes and could lead to severe penalties so they will try to proof that they did deliver the goods which is impossible as they don't have your address and other relevant personal details.

Let me try to sum up my response in one post. If you don’t mind, I’ll take a broader view, because these are important points and our approach may go slightly against the grain of how information about online casinos is typically regulated based on licensing alone.

Casino Guru is not a gambling operator. We don’t run any casinos and we don’t control which players a site chooses to accept. What we do is offer as much factual and up-to-date information as possible, including licensing details, player complaints and warnings about unfair practices.

The truth is that many players who are self-excluded via GamStop still actively look for ways to gamble and often end up registering at offshore or crypto casinos. This is already happening, often without any proper information or context, and we see the consequences almost daily in our forum and complaint system. Players report issues with casinos that have a Safety Index below 2, casinos that apply predatory rules or simply stop responding. That’s not theory. It’s the everyday reality we’re trying to improve.

Our content adapts to each visitor’s location. Players from the UK can clearly see which casinos are licensed by the UKGC and which are not. That way, if someone still chooses to register with an unlicensed operator, it’s not because a review site tricked or encouraged them. It’s a conscious decision made with full awareness of the risks.

We don’t claim this is a perfect approach. But in our experience, pretending these casinos don’t exist only increases the risk for vulnerable players. When visibility is removed, so are the warnings, and that helps no one.

That’s all I can add from my side. I understand that some may see things differently and that’s absolutely fine. I’m not here to convince anyone, just to clarify how we work and why.