Dear LuckyMax Casino,
Thank you for the provided explanation. I would like to mention that self-exclusion due to a gambling problem is a very serious issue because the players often lose control over their actions and are not thinking rationally. 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 opening (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 this case, the self-exclusion process timeframe was too long (13.4 - 2.6). We recommend improving the whole process. The self-exclusion due to gambling addiction should be carried out within a couple of days. In this case, it was over a month. Therefore, the player should be entitled to get a refund of their deposits from 18.4. until the day of the account closure.
I would like to ask you if we understood the situation correctly or if there is any other information as to why was the player with a gambling problem allowed to reopen his account and play so easily.
Dear LuckyMax Casino,
Thank you for the provided explanation. I would like to mention that self-exclusion due to a gambling problem is a very serious issue because the players often lose control over their actions and are not thinking rationally. 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 opening (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 this case, the self-exclusion process timeframe was too long (13.4 - 2.6). We recommend improving the whole process. The self-exclusion due to gambling addiction should be carried out within a couple of days. In this case, it was over a month. Therefore, the player should be entitled to get a refund of their deposits from 18.4. until the day of the account closure.
I would like to ask you if we understood the situation correctly or if there is any other information as to why was the player with a gambling problem allowed to reopen his account and play so easily.