Dear everyone,
I would like to summarise this case. It was established that the player had asked for an account closure on the 5th of May and the actual closure came on the 29th of May. We at Casino.Guru understand that there is a certain timeframe needed for the whole self-exclusion process, as the casinos have to sort through all of the requests manually and one by one, dealing with each and every case on an individual basis.
However, we consider 18 working days to complete such a request to be a very long time. On one hand, the casino needs to be able to fulfill all of the requests in a manageable way, on the other hand, the timeframe needed for this whole process should be as short as possible so the players who are suffering from gambling addiction have their accounts closed and do not fall into the temptation to play more.
Another issue is that the player was easily able to reopen the account, which should definitely not happen in cases of self-exclusion due to a gambling addiction, due to the fact that players often are not in control of their actions and they are prone to lose more money - as it unfortunately happened in this case. Informing the casino about a potential gambling problem is an important part of the self-exclusion process and we at Casino.Guru believe that if a player has a gambling problem and informs the casino about it, their account should be permanently closed without the possibility of reopening (except for certain situations like when a long enough self-exclusion period has already passed - we are talking about years) and also a relevant reopening process, which includes a sufficient cool off period (not a day but at least a week, ideally two) and also communication with the player during this cool-off period for verifying if the request was made in sound mind and wasn't just a temporary failure.
In conclusion, we find the whole self-exclusion process and also the responsible gambling policy in this case not sufficient enough and we recommend improving the whole process. We believe that the player should be entitled to get a refund of all the deposits that occurred on his account from the 9th of May if we take into consideration the time needed for completing the request by the casino.
Dear LuckyMax Casino, are you willing to refund the player? I will be looking forward to your reply.
Dear everyone,
I would like to summarise this case. It was established that the player had asked for an account closure on the 5th of May and the actual closure came on the 29th of May. We at Casino.Guru understand that there is a certain timeframe needed for the whole self-exclusion process, as the casinos have to sort through all of the requests manually and one by one, dealing with each and every case on an individual basis.
However, we consider 18 working days to complete such a request to be a very long time. On one hand, the casino needs to be able to fulfill all of the requests in a manageable way, on the other hand, the timeframe needed for this whole process should be as short as possible so the players who are suffering from gambling addiction have their accounts closed and do not fall into the temptation to play more.
Another issue is that the player was easily able to reopen the account, which should definitely not happen in cases of self-exclusion due to a gambling addiction, due to the fact that players often are not in control of their actions and they are prone to lose more money - as it unfortunately happened in this case. Informing the casino about a potential gambling problem is an important part of the self-exclusion process and we at Casino.Guru believe that if a player has a gambling problem and informs the casino about it, their account should be permanently closed without the possibility of reopening (except for certain situations like when a long enough self-exclusion period has already passed - we are talking about years) and also a relevant reopening process, which includes a sufficient cool off period (not a day but at least a week, ideally two) and also communication with the player during this cool-off period for verifying if the request was made in sound mind and wasn't just a temporary failure.
In conclusion, we find the whole self-exclusion process and also the responsible gambling policy in this case not sufficient enough and we recommend improving the whole process. We believe that the player should be entitled to get a refund of all the deposits that occurred on his account from the 9th of May if we take into consideration the time needed for completing the request by the casino.
Dear LuckyMax Casino, are you willing to refund the player? I will be looking forward to your reply.