RANT Casino - Player requests reimbursement for multiple casinos violating player protection directive.

just to give an explanation, i have not been in contact with MGA regarding this casino, but i would like tour helt to this.

so back in 2020 i created an account on crazeplay which i deposited alot of money and it ended with me closing my account due to addiction, i even remember that i couldnt create an account bluvegas.com which was under same license (starscream & gammix ran under the same)

so i already recived a refund for 515 euro, this was for the deposits made to goslot, but i have not recived any refunds from either scatters/gammix/locowin/cashimasi.

So all of these ran under MGA license and what i am claiming is that they have been faulty in "player protection directive 2018" which is stated on MGAs terms of use.

the casino sees the 515 euro as the solution which i dont, since its alot more money which i shouldnt been able to deposit. And also by refunding the 515 euro they also admitted to wrong doing although they called this "goodwill"

well im not seeking goodwill, im seeking what i should be reciving the right amount of compensation for the violation of the "player protection directive 2018"

i have tons of more info if you need.

but i think its good to connect a 3rd party before going directly to MGA.

Dear Denzoor,

Thank you very much for submitting your complaint. I’m sorry to hear about your problem. Before we contact the casino and ask for their standpoint, could you please forward emails or screenshots showing that you have sent a request for a self-exclusion? My email address is petronela.k@casino.guru.

• Did you specify in that request for how long you wish your account to be suspended and the reason why?

I hope we will be able to help you to resolve this issue as soon as possible. Thank you in advance for your reply.

Best regards,

Petronela

I’ve sent you the information i have.

they have also not responded to me regarding personal data (blockdates) (reason)

Hi Denzoor,

After reviewing the forwarded communication and transaction history you provided, it's evident that the Licensing Authority has already addressed the issue and explained the reasons behind the partial refund processed for you.

Furthermore, considering that the initial request was made back in 2020, we regret to inform you that we are unable to proceed with this case. Due to the considerable time that has elapsed since the incident occurred, which is over one year ago, it becomes increasingly challenging, if not impossible, to investigate further. Our policy prohibits us from pursuing cases classified as "cold cases" due to the difficulty in gathering evidence and reconstructing a timeline.

Please let me know if there is any additional information that I have overlooked, but I’m afraid I will be forced to reject your complaint as unjustified. I wish I could be of more help. Thank you in advance for your reply and understanding.

That was for another case - the MGA, they have not been involved in this case, but ok. If you classify this as a cold case i dont really understand why though. When its clear that they have breached the player protection directive. I have deposited over 13000 euro to this license provider and they cant even find the common sense to refund the deposit made to rant.

its actually sickening.

Hi Denzoor,

• Could you kindly resend only the relevant communication pertaining to this case?

Please be aware that without supporting evidence demonstrating that you submitted a request for self-exclusion to this particular casino, we are unable to proceed with this case.

Thank you.

Dear Denzoor,

We are extending the timer by 7 days. Please, be aware that in case you fail to respond in the given time frame or don’t require any further assistance, we will reject the complaint.

We regret to inform you that we must reject this particular case due to the lack of response from the player regarding our messages and questions. As a result, we are unable to proceed with any further investigation or provide potential solutions to address the issue at hand. However, we want to emphasize that the player retains the option to reopen this complaint at any time in the future should they decide to do so. We remain open and willing to assist with resolving the matter should the player choose to resume communication.