Dear Megapari Casino and schieralorenzo09,
In the spirit of transparency toward the player, I would like to provide an update - or more accurately, a summary - of the situation’s development so far.
Based on the email received from the casino, there are no significant updates or new information, only a summary of past events and the procedures that were reportedly followed. Unfortunately, given the seriousness of self-exclusion and responsible gambling practices, I must highlight that the casino’s actions in this matter were not sufficiently thorough.
While it is true that the player created multiple accounts using different email addresses - constituting a clear violation of the casino’s rules - the circumstances of this case require a different approach. The player has explicitly stated they have gambling issues, and this situation should have been handled with greater care and responsibility.
I am particularly concerned about how a previously self-excluded player, whose records should exist in the casino’s database, was able to repeatedly create new accounts and deposit funds using the same personal data and payment method. Given that this information is required at the time of deposit, it is entirely unacceptable for the casino’s system to fail to flag these attempts. Allowing a self-excluded individual to deposit into newly created accounts without cross-checking such critical data represents a serious lapse in the casino’s responsible gambling protocols.
This failure suggests that self-exclusion records are either not being adequately utilized or are entirely ineffective. The purpose of recording self-exclusion data - including personal information and payment details - is to prevent precisely this type of scenario. If this information is collected but not used at critical moments, the entire self-exclusion policy loses its purpose and credibility.
Given this, I must stand by my previous position and assert the player's entitlement to a refund of all deposits made into any newly created accounts up until the moment the complaint was submitted on our platform. By applying proper measures, the casino should have ensured that these deposits were not possible if the self-exclusion had been properly honored.
To prevent similar situations in the future, the casino should take this case as a critical learning opportunity. Improvements to self-exclusion processes should be implemented as a matter of urgency, ensuring that personal data and payment methods are cross-referenced in real-time to protect vulnerable players. Cases like this are likely to increase, and protecting such individuals is a fundamental responsibility.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to hearing Megapari Casino's position on this issue.
Dear Megapari Casino and schieralorenzo09,
In the spirit of transparency toward the player, I would like to provide an update - or more accurately, a summary - of the situation’s development so far.
Based on the email received from the casino, there are no significant updates or new information, only a summary of past events and the procedures that were reportedly followed. Unfortunately, given the seriousness of self-exclusion and responsible gambling practices, I must highlight that the casino’s actions in this matter were not sufficiently thorough.
While it is true that the player created multiple accounts using different email addresses - constituting a clear violation of the casino’s rules - the circumstances of this case require a different approach. The player has explicitly stated they have gambling issues, and this situation should have been handled with greater care and responsibility.
I am particularly concerned about how a previously self-excluded player, whose records should exist in the casino’s database, was able to repeatedly create new accounts and deposit funds using the same personal data and payment method. Given that this information is required at the time of deposit, it is entirely unacceptable for the casino’s system to fail to flag these attempts. Allowing a self-excluded individual to deposit into newly created accounts without cross-checking such critical data represents a serious lapse in the casino’s responsible gambling protocols.
This failure suggests that self-exclusion records are either not being adequately utilized or are entirely ineffective. The purpose of recording self-exclusion data - including personal information and payment details - is to prevent precisely this type of scenario. If this information is collected but not used at critical moments, the entire self-exclusion policy loses its purpose and credibility.
Given this, I must stand by my previous position and assert the player's entitlement to a refund of all deposits made into any newly created accounts up until the moment the complaint was submitted on our platform. By applying proper measures, the casino should have ensured that these deposits were not possible if the self-exclusion had been properly honored.
To prevent similar situations in the future, the casino should take this case as a critical learning opportunity. Improvements to self-exclusion processes should be implemented as a matter of urgency, ensuring that personal data and payment methods are cross-referenced in real-time to protect vulnerable players. Cases like this are likely to increase, and protecting such individuals is a fundamental responsibility.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to hearing Megapari Casino's position on this issue.
Edited by a Casino Guru admin