Irrevocable block opened

Hello, has anyone had experience with a casino permanently closing an account, then blocking it, and subsequently reopening it upon request? Is a casino even allowed to do that?

Hi, yes, I've seen something like that before, but it doesn't happen often when a casino closes your account, blocks it, and then reopens it. I’ve mostly seen this happen when the casino was conducting an investigation and the player’s account was closed for the time being, and once the investigation was over, it was reopened.

There are also situations where a player asks the casino to close their account but wants to reopen it after some time. It is possible. Every casino handles this individually, but it’s not unusual. If the player self-excluded, then the account shouldn’t be reopened.

Can you describe what happened to you and at which casino so we can look into it together?

Thank you for your reply.

In my case, however, I explicitly wrote to the casino requesting that my account be closed "permanently and irrevocably" with immediate effect. I also requested written confirmation of the permanent closure.

Therefore, I assumed it wasn't just a routine account closure. Later, however, the account was reopened.

This is Lucky Circus Casino.

I am therefore particularly interested in whether reopening the account under these circumstances was even permissible. The account was indeed reopened immediately!

I'd say it's pretty much standard practice.

If a player requests to close their account, it can be reopened. Some casinos have a waiting period after which the player can request it, while others will reopen it almost immediately. 

If you self-exclude, or if you say you have a gambling addiction and the casino reopens your account, that shouldn’t happen even if the player requests it. Players need to be protected, and if that doesn’t work, then it’s pointless.

But as I said, when closing an account, it’s common for the casino to reopen it if the player requests it. So if I wanted to keep my account permanently closed in the future, I would request self-exclusion. 

Of course, I’m not saying there aren’t casinos that would open such an account for you, but then we’d have to deal with that situation, and it certainly shouldn’t be that way.

I have irrevocably and permanently blocked the account; this is a self-exclusion!

Then why did you try to go back to the casino? If you didn't have a good experience there, or something disappointed you, and you wanted to go back after some time, I don't know if this is a situation where the casino shouldn't reopen your account. It doesn’t really seem like a self-exclusion request to me. It seems more like you were unhappy with something and went back because you’d been playing there for a long time and had enough deposits.

I have had my account blocked several times before, but never in such an unambiguous way. When I explicitly write "irrevocable" and "permanently," it clearly and unambiguously means: forever, without the possibility of reopening.

If a casino circumvents such a ban, I have to question where the line is drawn. It's particularly contradictory that VIP support confirmed the permanent ban, yet the account was subsequently reactivated. This contradicts the very meaning of a permanent and irrevocable account ban.

Furthermore, I explicitly informed you on March 3rd that the account was to be closed "indefinitely." This wording also makes it unequivocally clear that a permanent closure of the account was not intended, not a temporary suspension.

Given this background, I find it incomprehensible why the account was later reactivated. It is particularly contradictory that the permanent or irrevocable suspension was confirmed by your VIP support, yet the account could still be reactivated afterward.

If even formulations like "permanent", "irrevocable" and "close indefinitely" are not considered a clear signal, I have to question whether your casino even has clear limits and effective safeguards.

Of course, I’d like to point out that I’m not a casino representative, so what you’re describing or saying makes it sound like you might think that’s the case, but it’s not. 

Furthermore, obviously, if a casino closes an account and the player clearly states that it should be closed permanently, then the casino shouldn’t reopen it. On the other hand, there are many players who say the same thing you do, and then come back a month later saying they want to play there again. There’s a fine line there. But if you close your account, come back, reopen it, spend money there, and then want it back, I don’t know if you’ll get anywhere.

That's precisely the crucial point: I didn't request a normal temporary closure, but explicitly a permanent and irrevocable ban. From that moment on, the responsibility lay with the casino to ensure that the account could not be reopened.

If a player regains access despite a clear and permanent ban, it cannot be argued that the player had complete control over the situation. That is precisely why permanent bans and responsible gambling measures exist.

Hello, I understand those nuances may be very frustrating. If I may jump in for a sec, I would just like to mention that there is sadly a huge difference between a permanent self-exclusion request and a permanent self-exclusion request due to gambling addiction.

The second one is the only real permanent one, as far as I can say based on casinos' practices and insights gained from players' complaints focused on self-exclusion situations.

I thought this info could be helpful given the nature of the problem or situation.

Of course we can talk more about that anytime, or I'll leave you alone with Jaro here.

I understand the difference you mean. However, from my perspective, my case is still significantly more problematic.

I didn't simply request a normal account closure, but explicitly stated my request in writing:

"permanently"

"irrevocable"

"with immediate effect"

Additionally, the casino later confirmed the ban itself, stating:

"We have permanently blocked your account, as you requested."

This clearly documented that the account was to be permanently closed.

That is precisely why I consider it problematic that the same ban was later lifted through VIP communication and that I was even offered bonuses and offers again.

Of course, I later inquired about a reopening myself—I don't deny that. But in my view, that's precisely where a casino's responsibility lies: A confirmed, irrevocable ban shouldn't be easily circumvented through VIP contact or goodwill gestures.

It seems particularly contradictory when first an "irrevocable" ban is mentioned and then an exception is made later.

Sure, I get what you're saying too. We can quibble over the details here. Of course, what you wrote about it being permanent and so on is also important. But as Radka said, that’s often not enough for a casino to close your account permanently. Self-exclusion is usually mentioned. And as was said, there’s a difference between gambling addiction and normal self-exclusion. The casino will simply reopen the account if the player requests it because it’s a business for them. I don’t know how many casinos really care that much about protecting players. There are probably fewer of them than those who truly do care. That’s why you need to distinguish between the two in the future, and then I hope a situation like this won’t arise.

I understand the difference you mean, and I am aware that many casinos differentiate between responsible gambling self-exclusion and normal account closure.

However, in my case I still see a crucial point:

I didn't just "pause" or temporarily close my account, but explicitly used the terms "permanent" and "irrevocable".

Even more importantly, in my view, the casino itself adopted and confirmed this wording:

"We have permanently blocked your account, as you requested."

From my perspective, this led me to believe that a later reopening would no longer be possible.

That's precisely why I consider it problematic that the ban was later lifted directly via the VIP chat.

Regardless of how the casino has labeled the internal exclusion category, the question remains for me:

What is the point of an explicitly confirmed "irrevocable" ban if it can later be reactivated?

I also understand what you're saying. Based on my experiences and the way our mediators handle players' complaints in those specific cases, the potential for harm is the most important issue. A permanent account closure due to gambling addiction is, in my book, the only working way to permanently close the account, because casinos may eventually open regularly closed accounts, sometimes even unintentionally.

To me, it almost looks like some casinos do not actually distinguish between account closure requests and temporary or permanent account closure requests. On the other hand, I understand it feels very wrong when a casino confirms permanent account closure and, at the same time, it's not actually permanent.

Those situations are usually not ideal, and I understand why you disagree with the casino action. I guess more accurate details and points will be specified in the associated complaint. I'm counting on that.

Thank you for the objective answer. In my view, this point describes the actual problem very well.

I understand that many casinos internally differentiate between various types of bans. However, in my case, I received explicit confirmation that my account was "irrevocably blocked".

Therefore, from my point of view, I was reasonably justified in assuming that a later reopening would no longer be possible.

That is precisely why I consider it problematic if a ban confirmed as "irrevocable" can later be lifted, especially directly via a VIP chat.

If the casino internally differentiates between different types of exclusion, this should have been clearly communicated in my view.

I agree with you and, at some point, feel like playing with the words, at least for me. If I understood it correctly, the ban was later lifted based on your request to the VIP manager.

If I may add another perspective, I would like to say that casinos are businesses, so if you change your mind and later ask for the account to be reopened, they'll gladly do it. The main difference is in the retrospective level of risk:

If you were to ask for the account closure due to gambling issues, the account cannot be reopened no matter how hard you would try afterwards.

However, if the account is only closed without this notice, the casino can occasionally ask you whether you are still happy with your decision, which may lead to the reopening request.

I know the situation is not pleasant, but if you need your casino account to be closed permanently because you feel like you can revoke this decision in the future, go for account closure due to gambling issues right from the start.

That's sadly the best working way. And if any casino does not distinguish between those two scenarios, then it's their failure in the first place.

Thank you for the factual explanation. I understand the difference you make between a gambling addiction ban and a normal account closure.

Nevertheless, I still see a problem in my case because my suspension was explicitly confirmed as "irrevocable." Precisely for this reason, I was entitled to assume that a later reopening would no longer be possible.

If the casino internally differentiates between different types of bans, this should have been clearly communicated in my view, especially before the account was later reopened directly via the VIP chat.

Precisely because such terms are very important to players, I believe it is essential to communicate clearly and transparently.

Thank you for explaining your point of view again. I understand why the wording used by the casino may have created the expectation that reopening would not be possible later. I think this part of your concern has been understood.

At the same time, the key difference discussed here is between a gambling-related self-exclusion and a standard account closure request, even if strong wording such as "permanent" or "irrevocable" was used. Since you later requested the reopening yourself, this complicates the situation.

I believe the important details will need to be assessed in the complaint itself, including how the closure was classified internally and what communication took place at the time. At this point, I’m not sure we can add much more here until that process is completed.