Complaint rejected unfairly and against Casino Guru's own guidance

ben291

Bronce

Australia

hace 8 meses

Original

Traducción

Presenté una queja aquí, pero me sorprendió mucho ver que mi queja fue rechazada porque " Una de las condiciones clave es que el jugador debe mencionar claramente la adicción al juego o un problema con el juego como motivo para solicitar el cierre de la cuenta ", a pesar del hecho de que solicité explícitamente una autoexclusión permanente y NO un cierre de cuenta.

Decirle a un casino que quiero autoexcluirme permanentemente es, por definición, decir que tengo un problema con el juego. Si solicité el cierre de mi cuenta, es razonable pensar que podría deberse a otras razones, pero no hay ninguna interpretación razonable posible de la autoexclusión por parte de nadie involucrado en la industria de los casinos que pueda significar otra cosa. Si le pido explícitamente al casino que tome el control y me impida realizar apuestas en el futuro, es porque no tengo control sobre mí mismo. Esa es la definición de un problema con el juego, y precisamente contra lo que existe la autoexclusión para protegerme.

No creo que esto sea necesario, pero puedo proporcionar un sinfín de fuentes para respaldarlo, incluido el propio sitio web de CG, por ejemplo:

Wikipedia : La autoexclusión (o exclusión voluntaria) es una política implementada por algunos gobiernos y casinos individuales para abordar el problema del juego.

Comisión de Juego del Reino Unido : ¿Qué es la autoexclusión?

La autoexclusión es una herramienta utilizada por quienes han reconocido que el juego les perjudica. Está dirigida a quienes desean recibir apoyo para dejar de jugar.

Del sitio web de Casino Guru ( códice de juegos de azar ):

10. Autoexclusiones

El punto de vista del casino

Los casinos generalmente quieren garantizar que sus jugadores puedan jugar de forma segura, lo que también incluye darles la oportunidad de autoexcluirse por completo. No quieren lucrarse con los jugadores problemáticos, para quienes está diseñada la función de autoexclusión.

El punto de vista del jugador

Los jugadores con problemas de adicción al juego necesitan la opción de autoexcluirse, ya que sus hábitos de juego se han descontrolado. Si un jugador quiere jugar durante su periodo de autoexclusión, es probable que esto sea perjudicial para sus intereses debido a su falta de autocontrol.

He intentado comunicarme y declarar o al menos discutir esto varias veces, sin embargo, me resulta imposible obtener una respuesta real sobre por qué no se cumplió este criterio.

Es frustrante por decir lo menos, cuando lleva tiempo, esfuerzo y confianza en CG abrir una queja y pensar que al menos obtendré algo de apoyo al tratar de mediar, y ni siquiera tener una oportunidad debido a una condición que se afirma que no se cumple, pero que se cumple según todos los estándares razonables/lógicos, incluidos los propios estándares de Casino Guru.

Por favor, que prevalezca el sentido común y que alguien del equipo de quejas revise y reabra el asunto. Disculpen la extensión de la publicación y agradezco mucho cualquier ayuda.

I submitted a complaint here but was extremely surprised to see I have had my complaint rejected because "One of the key conditions is that the player must clearly mention gambling addiction or a gambling problem as the reason for requesting account closure", despite the fact that I explicitly requested a permanent self-exclusion and NOT an account closure.

Telling a casino I want to permanently self-exclude is by definition saying I have a gambling problem. If I requested an account closure, there is a reasonable interpretation that it could be due to other reasons, but there is no possible reasonable interpretation of self-exclusion from anyone involved in the casino industry that it could mean anything but that. If I am explicitly asking the casino to take control and stop me from being able to place bets in the future, it is because I do not have control myself. That is the definition of a gambling problem, and exactly what self exclusion exists to protect against.

I don't believe this is necessary, but I can even provided endless sources to back this up, including CG's own website e.g.:

Wikipedia: Self-exclusion (or voluntary exclusion) is a policy enacted by some governments and individual casinos to address problem gambling.

UK Gambling Commission: What is self-exclusion?

Self-exclusion is a tool used by those who have recognised that their gambling is harmful to them. It is for those who wish to be supported to stop gambling.

From Casino Guru's own website (gambling codex):

10. Self-exclusions

The casino's point of view

Casinos generally want to make sure that their players can gamble safely, which also includes giving them an opportunity to fully exclude themselves from playing. They don't want to make money from problem gamblers, which is exactly who the self-exclusion feature is made for.

The player's point of view

Players who are experiencing problem gambling issues need the option to self-exclude themselves because their gambling habits have gotten out of control. If a player wants to gamble during their self-exclusion period, it's likely that this could be against their best interests due to their lack of self control.

I have tried to reach out and state or at the very least discuss this multiple times, however, am finding it impossible to get an actual response as to how this criteria was not satisfied.

It is frustrating to say the least, when it takes time, effort, and trust in CG to open a complaint and thinking I will at least get some support in trying to mediate, and not even getting a chance because of a condition which is claimed not to be met, but is met by every reasonable/logical standard including Casino Guru's own standards.

Can common sense please prevail here and I get someone from the complaints team to review and reopen this. I do apologise for the lengthy post and greatly appreciate any assistance.

Radka

ben291

Social Media & Community Specialist

ben291

hace 8 meses

Original

Traducción

Hello,

the way I understand, your post reflects this recently closed complaint:

"Thanks for pointing out the facts of the case.

Please note that our ability to mediate a refund of lost deposits in cases where gambling-related harm is involved depends on specific criteria. One of the key conditions is that the player must clearly mention gambling addiction or a gambling problem as the reason for requesting account closure.

In an ideal situation, the status of your account should be communicated clearly via customer support after it was requested, or responsible gambling options should be presented by casino support. From the situation you encountered, the status of your request wasn't communicated sufficiently after it was received on one hand; however, without the disclosure of the gambling problems as the reason for self-exclusion, we conclude the responsibility for the account was still yours.

Since your account has already been closed, there is no further action we can take. For this reason, we regret to inform you that we are unable to uphold your complaint or request a refund of your lost funds, and the complaint will be closed. Thank you for your understanding. Even though we couldn't assist you further with this case, don't hesitate to contact us if you run into issues with any online casinos in the future.

Best regards,

Tomas"

Okay, I understand you believe things should have turned out differently. The Complaint Team members are not present on the forum and do not read the posts, so I recommend you send this to your former complaint mediator. Here on the forum, you are welcome to discuss the events with us, forum admins, or fellow players if you wish to.

ben291

Radka

Bronce

Australia

Radka

hace 8 meses

Original

Traducción

Hi Radka,

Thanks for responding and for letting me know. I have tried to reach out to my former complaint mediator, but he has not addressed any of my concerns or provided actual reasoning, so I was unclear what the best course of action was. Is there anyone in the complaints team I can reach out to or who might monitor these threads?

Radka

ben291

Social Media & Community Specialist

ben291

hace 8 meses

Original

Traducción

Hi, thank you for sharing more details.

Did you also try to request the reopening of the complaint directly? From what I can see, this might be the only formal step available at this point.

Just to be fully transparent: once a complaint is closed, our mediators move on to the next case. It’s not that we don’t want to continue the discussion, but with the volume of submissions we receive, it's simply not realistic to engage in extended post-closure debates, even if we understand why many players would want that.

The final post in each case is meant to explain the reasoning behind the decision, and mediators only close complaints after carefully weighing all relevant details. I know this might not always feel satisfying, but I hope it helps clarify why the process works the way it does.

ben291

Radka

Bronce

Australia

Radka

hace 8 meses

Original

Traducción

I did and it was closed again, without any of my concerns being addressed. I would let this go if there was any ambiguity in how this should be decided, but it is black and white.

The mediator said that asking for a permanent self-exclusion is not "mentioning a gambling problem as the reason for requesting account closure" when this is factually incorrect based on what self-exclusion means and is, and by Casino Guru’s own standards ("They don't want to make money from problem gamblers, which is exactly who the self-exclusion feature is made for").

I'm just hoping to get a second set of eyes over my complaint from someone in the complaints team, as it does take time and effort to raise, the mediator showed they did not read my complaint carefully (by asking for details already mentioned multiple times I had to reference previous posts), and made a judgement which goes against the sites standards.

Radka

Social Media & Community Specialist

ben291

hace 8 meses

Original

Traducción

I did and it was closed again, without any of my concerns being addressed. I would let this go if there was any ambiguity in how this should be decided, but it is black and white.

The mediator said that asking for a permanent self-exclusion is not "mentioning a gambling problem as the reason for requesting account closure" when this is factually incorrect based on what self-exclusion means and is, and by Casino Guru’s own standards ("They don't want to make money from problem gamblers, which is exactly who the self-exclusion feature is made for").

I'm just hoping to get a second set of eyes over my complaint from someone in the complaints team, as it does take time and effort to raise, the mediator showed they did not read my complaint carefully (by asking for details already mentioned multiple times I had to reference previous posts), and made a judgement which goes against the sites standards.

hace 8 meses

Original

Traducción

¡Hola!

Entiendo que esta situación sea profundamente frustrante, sobre todo cuando has hecho una solicitud clara y esperabas que se interpretara de cierta manera. Pero ya que pides una segunda revisión y una aclaración, permíteme explicar el razonamiento de nuestra política con un poco más de detalle.

Actualmente no existen estándares universales sobre cómo los casinos deben gestionar las solicitudes de autoexclusión, ni siquiera cuando se utiliza el término "autoexclusión permanente". Ese es el meollo del problema.

Cada casino tiene su propia política interna sobre cómo interpretar las solicitudes de los jugadores, especialmente cuando no declaran explícitamente que sufren daños relacionados con el juego. Sin esa mención específica, nuestro Equipo de Quejas no puede presumir el contexto ni la intención. No porque ignoremos el sentido común, sino porque no podemos asumir con seguridad lo que un jugador quiso decir sin que lo exprese claramente.

Permítanme darles un ejemplo práctico:

Si alguien escribe "Por favor, cierren mi cuenta definitivamente, ya no quiero jugar", lo hemos visto en jugadores que se toman un descanso por razones económicas, valores personales, presión en sus relaciones o incluso simplemente por aburrimiento. La palabra "permanente" no siempre indica daño ni adicción.

Por otro lado, si un jugador dice

"Por favor, cierren mi cuenta permanentemente porque tengo un problema con el juego y quiero autoexcluirme".

Entonces el contexto es claro y eso desencadena un tipo de evaluación diferente por parte nuestra.

Estoy de acuerdo contigo en que la autoexclusión tiene como objetivo proteger a las personas con problemas de adicción al juego. Pero, lamentablemente, eso no significa que la frase tenga ese significado automáticamente en todos los casos, a menos que el jugador lo haga explícito.

Por lo tanto, nuestra condición de que «la adicción al juego debe explicarse claramente como motivo» no pretende negar su interpretación, sino garantizar que no haya lugar a malentendidos. Sobre todo porque los jugadores pueden usar, y de hecho usan, términos como «autoexclusión» incluso cuando no se refieren a la adicción.

Sé que esto puede no parecer justo, sobre todo en retrospectiva. Pero aplicamos esta política de forma consistente en todos los casos porque la alternativa sería hacer suposiciones que podrían ser contraproducentes para el jugador o incluso para el operador.

Avísame si esto te ayuda a entender nuestra decisión, incluso si sigues en desacuerdo. Agradezco mucho el esfuerzo y la dedicación que has dedicado a tus publicaciones.

Hi!

I understand that this situation feels deeply frustrating, especially when you've made a clear request and expected it to be interpreted in a certain way. But since you're asking for a second look and clarification, let me try to explain the reasoning behind our policy in a bit more detail.

There are currently no universal standards for how casinos must handle self-exclusion requests, not even when the term "permanent self-exclusion" is used. That’s the core of the issue.

Each casino has its own internal policy on how to interpret various player requests, especially when the player does not explicitly state that they are struggling with gambling-related harm. And without that specific mention, our Complaints Team cannot presume the context or intent. Not because we’re ignoring common sense but because we can't safely assume what a player meant without them stating it clearly.

Let me give you a practical example:

If someone writes "please close my account permanently, I don’t want to play anymore," we’ve seen this come from players taking a break for financial reasons, personal values, relationship pressure, or even just boredom. The word "permanent" doesn’t always signal harm or addiction.

On the other hand, if a player says

"Please close my account permanently as I have a gambling problem and want to self-exclude,"

then the context is clear and that triggers a different type of evaluation from us.

I do agree with you that self-exclusion is intended to protect people struggling with gambling. But unfortunately, that doesn’t mean the phrase automatically carries that meaning in every individual case unless the player makes it explicit.

So, our condition that "gambling addiction must be clearly stated as the reason" is not about denying your interpretation, it’s about ensuring there’s no room for misunderstanding. Especially because players can and do use terms like "self-exclusion" even when not referring to addiction.

I know this might not feel fair, especially in hindsight. But we apply this policy consistently across all cases because the alternative would be to make assumptions that could backfire for the player or even for the operator.

Let me know if this helps make sense of our decision, even if you still disagree with it. I genuinely appreciate how much thought and effort you've put into your posts.

ben291

Radka

Bronce

Australia

Radka

hace 8 meses

Original

Traducción

Hola Radka,

También agradezco sinceramente la respuesta extremadamente detallada, que arroja algo más de luz.

Creo que todos los reguladores y casinos del mundo saben exactamente qué significa y a qué se refiere la frase "autoexclusión", y el 99 % de los jugadores deberían saberlo, y que es muy diferente a simplemente solicitar el cierre de una cuenta. Los eufemismos existen por algo, y muchos jugadores como yo nos sentimos menos avergonzados al solicitar una autoexclusión que al decir abiertamente: "Por favor, impidan que vuelva a apostar por la fuerza porque tengo un problema con el juego y no puedo controlarme".

La responsabilidad de demostrar que la solicitud de autoexclusión no estaba relacionada con la adicción al juego debería recaer en el casino; por ejemplo, si el usuario dijera "por favor, autoexcluya mi cuenta de forma permanente, me preocupa que mis datos se filtren si mi cuenta permanece activa" y luego, dos semanas después, "no importa, por favor vuelva a abrir mi cuenta", entonces el casino podría argumentar fácilmente que el usuario no sabía lo que estaba pidiendo.

En mi situación, mis patrones de apuestas habrían sido una señal clara. El casino confirmó que se autoexcluiría y luego, tras informarles que aún podía apostar, guardó silencio los días siguientes. Envié mensajes de seguimiento, aunque nunca tardaron más de una o dos horas en responder, y pude ver que estaban activos. Sin duda, sabían qué les preguntaba y por qué, pero decidieron ignorarlo para sacar provecho.

Quizás haya una buena razón detrás de esto, como un historial de casos difíciles o abuso de jugadores. Simplemente no puedo aceptar la idea de que Casino Guru no investigue estos casos porque existe la posibilidad (y en el pasado) de que los jugadores hayan usado estos términos erróneamente en el contexto equivocado. Esto ocurre especialmente cuando se presenta en el sitio web, y sin duda conducirá a prácticas sospechosas del casino que no se detecten.

De todos modos, lo dejaré aquí, pero gracias nuevamente por tomarte el tiempo de leer mis publicaciones y proporcionar algo de contexto.

Hi Radka,

I’m also genuinely appreciative for the extremely detailed response, and it does shed some more light.

I just think that every regulator and casino on earth know exactly what the phrase self-exclusion means and is referring to, and 99% of players should know the same, and that it is significantly different than just requesting an account closure. Euphemisms exist for a reason, and many gamblers such as myself feel less embarrassed requesting a self exclusion than outwardly saying "please forcibly stop me from ever betting again because I have a gambling problem and can’t control myself".

The onus should be on the casino to prove that the self-exclusion request was not related to gambling addiction, e.g. if the user said "please permanently self exclude my account I’m worried about my data getting leaked if my account remains active" then two weeks later "nvm please reopen my account", then the casino could easily make the case that the user didn’t know what they were asking.

In my situation, my betting patterns would have been a clear signal, the casino confirmed they would self-exclude and then went radio silent in the days following when I said I was still able to place bets, and sent follow up messages, when they had never taken more than an hour or two to respond, and I could see they were active. There is no doubt they knew what and why I was asking this, but chose to ignore it to profit.

Maybe there is a good reason behind this like a history of difficult cases or player abuse, I just can't support the idea that Casino Guru won't pursue these because there is the potential (and in the past), gamblers have mistakenly used these terms in the wrong context. This is especially when it is laid out on the website, and it will no doubt lead to shady casino practices going unchecked.

Anyway, I'll leave it here but thank you again for taking the time to read through my posts and provide some context.

Radka

ben291

Social Media & Community Specialist

ben291

hace 8 meses

Original

Traducción

Hi again ben291,

First of all, thank you for your thoughtful reply. I completely see where you're coming from. It's true that both players and operators widely associate the phrase "self-exclusion" with gambling problems. And yes, many people do use it because it feels less confrontational or vulnerable than explicitly stating "I have a gambling problem."

That’s a valid point.

But your case also highlights exactly why we need to follow a strict standard when interpreting complaints. The absence of a direct reference to gambling harm introduces just enough ambiguity for a casino to claim a different interpretation, and that puts us in a position where we cannot objectively prove what was meant. Even if, like in your case, it seems obvious in retrospect.

And that’s what’s genuinely frustrating.

Not that you're wrong, but in situations this serious, we can't rely on shared understanding or good faith assumptions. We wish we could, but too many complaints have proven that’s a risky road for everyone involved.

We also agree that shady practices must be exposed. But the only way to push operators to act responsibly is by setting standards they cannot wiggle around. Requiring a clear statement of gambling harm is a painful line to draw, but it’s the line we can defend in every case, consistently, even against pushback from the casino side.

Complaint rejected unfairly and against Casino Guru's own guidance

Añadir mensaje