Anjouan Gaming Licence respnsible gaming rules/ conduct of code (page 3)

Self-exclusion is meant to be a serious protection tool for players, and it must be treated as such.

I am writing this to highlight a pattern of behaviour that, in my opinion, shows how self-exclusion is being ignored and how vulnerable players are being exploited.

I have permanent self-exclusion active with one casino (22Bet). Despite this, I recently received promotional/spam messages from a related casino (20Bet), which strongly suggests that self-exclusion is not being respected across the same casino group. This is extremely concerning, especially when players have clear gambling problems and have taken the step to protect themselves.

In my case, and in other similar cases I have seen, there is evidence of a broader pattern:

Self-excluded players still receiving marketing messages

Access being enabled through alternative links or related brands

Vulnerable players being targeted instead of protected

This is not only irresponsible, but also an unfair and unethical way of generating profit by exploiting players who are already struggling.

Additionally, I strongly believe that KYC should be mandatory before any deposits are allowed. Without proper verification, casinos cannot know who is actually playing. This creates serious risks, including the possibility of underage gambling, which should never be acceptable.

I am not posting this only for my own case.

I am doing this to emphasize that self-exclusion must be respected across casino groups and brands, and that responsible gambling tools must not exist only "on paper".

Players who choose self-exclusion are asking for protection — not loopholes.

I hope Casino Guru and the community will take this seriously and look into whether these practices align with responsible gambling standards.

I just moved your other post here because it addresses the same issue, and I believe losing the context with AOFA as a licensing authority would be quite a shame. I hope you don't mind.

Hi Radka,

thank you for letting me know — I don’t mind at all.

I agree that keeping the AOFA context is important, especially since licensing authorities play a key role in how self-exclusion and responsible gambling obligations are enforced in practice.

My main intention here is to highlight how self-exclusion can lose its purpose when it is not respected across related brands or groups, regardless of the specific operator involved. From a player’s perspective, this creates a real risk, particularly for vulnerable players who rely on self-exclusion as a last line of protection.

I appreciate you keeping the discussion structured and contextual, and I’m glad this topic can be examined with the broader regulatory framework in mind.

Thank you.

Maybe adding a link to the associated complaint would also enrich the subject. However, I understand that self-exclusion and gambling harm are both sensitive matters, so if you don't like the idea, I'll erase the link.

Here on the forum, we strive to support such topics with concrete details, and complaints play a significant role in this effort.

To be honest, as we discussed earlier, there is actually no working broader regulatory framework when it comes to most of the offshore licenses; therefore, my colleagues are capable of applying our own fair approach instead. Once the specialist is assigned to your complaint, we shall learn more, of course.

Thank you, Radka.

I agree that adding a link to the associated complaint makes sense and can help provide clearer context. I am fine with including it.

I appreciate the careful approach given the sensitivity of self-exclusion and responsible gambling, and I’m looking forward to the specialist reviewing the full details once assigned.