Self-exclusion failure: When systems fall short

The second episode of the Casino Guru’s AI-powered new podcast, Player’s Horizon, is now live, and for those of you interested in finding out how some of the most pressing issues players face at online casinos are resolved through our collective expertise, this may be a particularly worthwhile listen.

In this episode, our hosts Nate and Mike dig into another important topic - what happens when a player reaches out to a casino over their gambling problem, but the casino lets them play on anyway?

Check out the full episode on Spotify.

The case discussed in the latest episode is, as Nate puts it, "heavy," as it touches on a sensitive topic in the industry that needs to be addressed head-on, without embellishment.

"Yeah. This one is different from a typical bonus dispute or delayed payout story. Today, we’re looking at a complaint involving a crypto casino, a player from Germany, and total losses of more than twenty thousand euros,"Mike chimes right in, establishing what Episode 2 will be about.

The case was filed with Casino Guru in May 2021, and finally resolved in July 2024, taking three grueling years to arrive at a solution, especially when that much money had been lost.

"This episode talks about gambling harm and a moment where the player described being in real emotional danger because of his losses. We’re not going to repeat graphic language, but if that kind of topic is difficult for you, please take care of yourself," adds Nate, looking to quickly establish expectations.

Nate then took it on, setting the scene: "The player was from Germany, and he played at a crypto casino using cryptocurrency, specifically TRX."

This is an important tool, because the casino allowed the platform to access its products through crypto wallet tools, and disposed of the need for username, password, and full KYC profile - connecting through the wallet was enough to grant that player access.

"This creates a huge responsible gambling problem," Mike notes, and Nate confirms. "That’s the core of the whole case," he adds.

The player was placing increasingly large bets, which should have elicited a response. In one session, he ended up losing €3,000 and asked the casino to block him, and this is the key moment, argued Mike.

"The key moment is when he first says, ‘I have a problem. Stop me.’"

"Yes. Because from Casino Guru’s perspective, once a player clearly informs the casino about a gambling problem and asks for self-exclusion, the casino has a duty to take that seriously," Nate agreed.

But the casino let him keep playing, through alternative accounts, and only stepped up when he escalated the issue through a public support group, Nate added. Nate also clarified that the IP block that was requested was never actually rolled out.

This case, though, had another interesting twist - the crypto wallet. As Mike put it: "Right. If a person says, "I have a gambling problem, block me," the casino should not only close the active account. It should also stop that same person from opening a duplicate account with the same valid information."

However, there was an inherent problem. The crypto casino was using wallets to let players play, and these wallets could not be properly monitored in the sense that there was no way of knowing that a self-excluded person had returned to play, which was Casino Guru’s argument in the matter.

"And the casino argued that because users could enter through wallet extensions, they couldn’t block every possible registration route," Nate explained, but Mike then countered with a fair point:

"Hmmm. I understand the technical argument. But the ethical question is bigger. If your system makes it easy for self-excluded players to return, is that just a technical limitation, or is it a responsible gambling failure?"

Essentially, argued Mike, trying to scope out the case and better understand it, the player was saying: "You knew it was me, you knew I was struggling, and you still accepted deposits."

But the argument did not simply devolve into who is owed how much money. Rather, the player sought something different.

"He had three main requests. First, he wanted the casino to introduce proper responsible gambling tools. Deposit limits, timeouts, self-exclusion systems, and KYC checks," Nate explained.

Mike noted: "So, not just ‘pay me back’ but ‘change the system so this doesn’t happen to other players.’" The player did request a refund for any money he had placed after the operator realized that he had indeed been a problem gambler, but noted he would be satisfied even if only the system was changed in the end.

Third, he also requested his complete game history for the three gaming accounts he used, but the casino argued that it could not provide this detail. Eventually, the dispute made it to Casino Guru’s Complaint Resolution Center.

The case was logged by Petronela, the head of the Complaint Resolution Center, who responded first. Petronela was down to business from the start, asking the player to provide all the relevant information he could, substantiating his claims through screenshots, emails, and anything that could help establish a clear timeline and factology.

"Right. Petronela also asked whether he specified how long the closure should last and whether he clearly stated the reason," Nate explained. But the exact language and wording mattered, as noted by both Mike and Nate.

"Because there’s a difference between 'close my account' and 'I need self-exclusion because I have a gambling problem," Mike prompted, and Nate jumped in, confirming:

"Exactly. In complaint resolution, that wording matters. If a player just says, ‘I don’t like this casino, close my account,’ that’s one thing. But if they say, ‘I’m addicted’ or ‘I’m not in control,’ the casino’s duty changes."

The player provided the requested and necessary information, and the case was referred to Jozef, who at that point undertook to contact the casino. The casino did respond, as failure to do so would have impacted its reputation.

The casino’s immediate response was that it followed its policy requirements, which is that the requested account was closed, but any subsequent accounts were not the casino’s responsibility to track down and shutter.

The casino also confirmed that player game history records were removed once every thirty days, which triggered a rather strong response from the player, who accused the casino of not committing to any meaningful responsible gambling policy. He also cited his country of residence.

"He claimed the casino was not legally allowed to take bets from players in Germany. The casino later pointed back to its terms, saying users are responsible for making sure gambling is legal in their own region," Nate clarified.

The casino pushed back, arguing that the casino had used the service at its own discretion, attempting to shift the accountability to him.

"That’s the difficult part. Nobody is saying players have no responsibility. Gambling always involves personal decisions. But self-exclusion exists because people with gambling problems may not be able to reliably protect themselves in the moment," Nate mused, with Mike agreeing that a system was needed to ensure that "future me’s" would not attempt to gamble again despite "present me’s" legitimate and justified concerns.

Jumping ahead in the podcast, Nate clarified what Casino Guru’s response was at the time.

"But yeah, that was Casino Guru’s position. Jozef wrote to the casino that its protection for self-excluded players was insufficient. He said that if an addicted player is allowed to register again with the same valid information, Casino Guru believes the player deserves a deposit refund," he added.

The casino objected that because it allowed people to register through wallet extensions, it could not catch every such attempt.

"After that, Casino Guru made its decision. Jozef wrote that although the player agreed to the terms and conditions, Casino Guru believes casinos should carry partial responsibility for problem gamblers," Nate added.

Ultimately, the player did not get anything he had originally hoped for, but he did pry away a small win, entering into the public record how a casino had handled his case.

"Which matters, because future players can see how the operator handled a serious responsible gambling complaint," Mike said. But this was not the end of the case, because the case was eventually marked as resolved.

"The summary says the player informed Casino Guru that the case had recently been resolved," Mike prompted, adding: "Do we know all the details of the final settlement?"

"Not from the public text we have here. We know the case was successfully resolved after the casino contacted the player, but the exact terms are not shown in the thread," Nate added, with Mike cautioning readers not to become fanciful about how the case was resolved in the end and whether the full amount of €22,000 was returned.

"Let’s zoom out. Why does this case matter beyond one player and one casino?" Mike asked.

"Because crypto casinos create new challenges for responsible gambling. The same features that make them easy to use, like quick wallet access and limited friction, can make self-exclusion harder to enforce," Nate explained.

Later in the conversation, Nate and Mike mused once again on the case.

"You know, Nate, what sticks with me is that the player was not pretending everything was fine. He was telling the casino directly, ‘I have a problem,’" Mike explained.

"Yeah. That’s what makes it so hard to read. He wasn’t hiding it. He wasn’t calmly optimizing bonuses or trying to game the system. He was asking for a wall to be put in front of him," Nate rejoined.

Before parting, both Mike and Nate urged listeners not to ignore the signs of excessive or problematic gambling and use tools such as self-exclusion, blocking access, and reaching out for help to ensure that they are taken care of.

"Play safe, know your limits, and protect yourself before the damage is done," Nate wrapped up.

Image credit: Casino Guru News