self-exclusion and player protection

Hello,

I would be very interested to hear how you and Casino Guru view this matter.

What do you think about a player who sends a self-exclusion request to a casino and explicitly states that he suffers from gambling addiction and wants his account permanently closed? The casino complies with this request and closes the account.

However, if the player later decides to reopen the account, is the casino allowed to agree to this or not?

If the casino does indeed reopen the account and the player subsequently complains, can the casino simply defend itself by claiming that the player requested the reopening and may even have confirmed with a short message that everything is under control, as described in the casino's terms and conditions? Can the casino thereby absolve itself of all responsibility and claim to have done nothing wrong?

I would be very interested in your opinion on this.

Thank you!

Hello, let me say that we have been witnessing reopened once-closed accounts across many platforms. To me, it seems like quite a trend. 🙁

From what you shared, however, I understand it's a pressing matter and I appreciate your willingness to talk about problem gambling openly.

Just yesterday we were discussing how many unresolved complaints about self-exclusion failures are now needed to lower the overall casino safety index or whether a specific warning would better help vulnerable players...

It's a huge topic, and I personally do not like the direction those operators are taking. On the other hand, it's still fair to respect that more details will surely be discussed in your complaint, in which the casino also has neutral space for explaining such action. I'm trying to say that it's too early to judge right now.

I still prefer to adhere to the logic underlying the proper self-exclusion setup for gambling addiction. That should result in the player's account being closed permanently, because admitting addiction and clearly requesting account closure due to gambling addiction is not the same as requesting a temporary closure. No retention or persuasion should take place.

Hello Radka,

I'm glad we share the same opinion. I've suffered significant losses through gambling. Unfortunately, it's very difficult to protect yourself with online casinos, as it's so easy to open a new account at another casino.

Furthermore, accounts that have been blocked or permanently closed due to gambling addiction can now be reopened within minutes upon request.

Players suffering from gambling addiction will close their accounts after losses. However, as soon as they have money again, many will try to reopen the account to continue playing. In my opinion, and I speak openly from my own experience because I have done this many times, or rather, tried to close and then reopen accounts, the casino should intervene in such cases to protect the player and say, "No, we will not reopen an account that was closed due to gambling addiction."

Instead, such accounts are often reopened within minutes, allowing the player to continue playing immediately.

However, I want to be fair and say that there are still casinos that do not allow the opening of a closed account due to gambling addiction; very few, but some do.

Hi there,

First of all, let me say that I really empathize with you. I haven't been completely there, but I do have some experience I'm not actually proud of .

For the struggling person, the current state of the industry poses a real and never-ending sort of trouble, in my opinion. Just as you said, there are some casinos that still respect the basic safety measure, which includes no way of reopening a closed account once the addiction was clearly the case. But it seems to be getting further from the standard, and based on what I've seen over the last few months, the signs are not very promising. We could talk for hours or even days about what should work better, but in the end the final effort lies heavily on the operators too. That's perhaps the actual weakest spot. 🙁

I’m looking for real experiences from people who went through Stake’s Return-to-Play review after an indefinite self-exclusion.

My first reactivation request, submitted after the initial 6-month waiting period, was denied. Support told me I can apply again after another 6 months.

Has anyone been in a similar situation and eventually had their account reactivated after a later review?

I’m also wondering whether the information you provide in your Return-to-Play request makes a difference. My first request was very brief and didn’t really explain my situation or what had changed since my self-exclusion.

I’d really appreciate hearing about your experience. Thanks!

Hello, I replied to you in the other thread where another player also reached out to you.

The decision to self-exclude is often made during a clear moment, but that clarity doesn't always last. If a casino can reopen the account after a simple request, it feels like the whole purpose of permanent self-exclusion is weakened. I understand that adults are responsible for their own choices, but if someone specifically asked to be permanently excluded because of gambling addiction, I think that decision should be respected even when they later change their mind. Otherwise, it's hard to call it a real protection measure.