1xBet Casino - 일반 토론 (8 페이지)

That’s like saying someone asking a bartender to cut them off doesn’t count because they didn’t say "I have alcoholism." It’s an absurd interpretation of responsible gambling obligations. The law and licensing rules exist to protect vulnerable players, not to let operators hide behind technicalities.

My complaint was never based on emotions or sympathy. It was based on clear communication and documentary evidence showing that I requested exclusion and that the casino continued to accept deposits after acknowledging that request. Whether or not the word "addiction" appeared is irrelevant. The intent and request for exclusion were unmistakable.

The threshold you are holding players to is not the legal one. Self-exclusion requests do not need to contain clinical language. They only need to show intent, which mine clearly did. Your interpretation undermines the entire point of responsible gambling protections.

Thank you for your previous communication. I would like to confirm one important detail for my records.

Could you please provide me with the official ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) body or regulatory authority responsible for 1xBet? I understand that Casino.Guru acts as a mediator, but I would like to ensure I’m pursuing this matter through the correct licensing or oversight channel.

My goal is simply to obtain written confirmation of which licensing body 1xBet currently operates under, along with any available contact information for their ADR or regulator.

Thank you for your time and transparency. I appreciate your help in clarifying this.

I wanted to reach out for guidance regarding my 1xBet complaint. I understand Casino.Guru cannot enforce a decision directly, but I’m still unable to obtain the ADR details that 1xBet is required to provide.

The operator has refused to identify their ADR body despite multiple requests. Could you please confirm what options are available to me at this stage? I would appreciate your advice on whether this lack of transparency violates their licensing requirements or falls within the scope of the Curaçao Gaming Authority’s oversight.

Thank you again for your time and for any guidance you can provide.

I wanted to ask for clarification regarding the outcome of my 1xBet complaint. In your summary, it appears that repayment was not required because my initial exclusion request referred to "gambling-related harm" rather than explicitly using the term "gambling addiction."

Could you please confirm if the wording difference was the determining factor in your decision not to pursue repayment? My original request clearly communicated that I was seeking to self-exclude due to harmful gambling behavior, and I would like to ensure that my case was evaluated fairly and in line with responsible gambling standards.

Thank you for your time and clarification.

It wasn’t about one specific word, I'd say. The Complaints Team looked at the full context of your messages and the materials you provided. The issue wasn’t the phrasing of "harm" versus "addiction," but that there wasn’t clear evidence showing a confirmed gambling problem or exclusion before July 24th.

That’s what ultimately determined the outcome, it seems. Not the wording, but the lack of verified proof for that period.

I know this situation is frustrating, but I just want to be clear that the team didn’t dismiss your case on a technicality; they assessed it based on what could be proven.

I understand you’re trying to get a clear answer about the ADR situation. As I mentioned earlier, not all licensing frameworks require casinos to appoint an ADR body. Curaçao is one of those jurisdictions where operators are not legally required to work with an external ADR provider.

That’s why we can’t identify one for 1xBet.

If you’re questioning whether this setup itself meets Curaçao’s regulatory standards, that’s something only the Curaçao Gaming Authority can clarify. You’ve already taken the right step by contacting them directly. From our side, we’ve provided all the information available about how the framework works, I'm afraid. 🙁

Well, the only other channel is the licensing authority, Curaçao. (Check out the logo on the casino website visible to you; the casino has several versions based on players' countries, hence the license may be visible differently to both of us.) Then proceed to submit the request. I suggest browsing this guide focused on complaining to the regulators. 👈

Or you may try consulting lawyers, of course.

I appreciate your clarification, but I need to state clearly that your conclusion is not accurate. The burden was not on me to prove an addiction after the fact. I made two self-exclusion requests to 1xBet — on May 23 and May 30 — and I also followed up by phone, explicitly stating that I had a gambling problem and needed my account closed.

From that point onward, the responsibility shifted entirely to 1xBet to act in accordance with responsible gambling obligations. They did not. They continued to accept substantial deposits for over a month after my exclusion requests. That is the failure at the center of this case.

Your statement that there was "no verified proof" before July 24 is therefore incorrect. The written and verbal communications I provided are clear evidence of exclusion requests due to gambling harm. By reframing the issue as a lack of evidence, both 1xBet and Casino.Guru have avoided addressing the operator’s duty to protect a player who had already self-excluded.

Unless your team can confirm that these May 23 and May 30 emails and the follow-up call were properly reviewed, I will be forwarding this matter to the relevant regulatory authority for further action.

I see, but I have nothing else to add. You may always reopen the complaint and let the evidence be checked once more if you believe something wasn't clearly understood. Just not here on the forum. It always takes us back to the complaint. The option is there.

I appreciate your understanding.

I wanted to point out a clear inconsistency in how Casino.Guru has handled self-exclusion related complaints.

In a public RealSpin complaint, the team lead wrote:

"Had you reacted accordingly to their initial self-exclusion request and restricted their account in a reasonable timeframe…"

That statement shows a clear understanding that operators are responsible for acting promptly once a player requests exclusion. The complaint also led to a refund proposal from the mediator.

However, in my 1xBet case, which involved the same issue and identical circumstances, that same logic was not applied. My self-exclusion request and follow-up emails were verifiable, yet the case was dismissed on the grounds of "lack of evidence." During that time, 1xBet accepted deposits totaling CAD 74,666 and has since refused to provide ADR access.

Both cases involve deposits accepted after a confirmed exclusion, yet the outcomes were handled completely differently. I hope Casino.Guru reconsiders its approach to ensure consistent mediation standards, especially in cases where operators ignore responsible gambling obligations.

This was not entertainment. It was compulsive gambling, and 1xBet failed their duty of care.

I want to share the reality of what happened in my case because it shows a clear failure of responsible gambling obligations on the part of 1xBet.

After submitting a self-exclusion request in May 2025, my gambling behaviour changed completely. It was no longer recreational or enjoyable. It became compulsive. I was gambling out of desperation, not for entertainment, and I was doing so in an attempt to repair the situation I was already in.

During this period, I placed a large number of small bets over many sessions, not high-risk, impulsive wagers. This sustained activity took place after my exclusion request had been made.

This pattern of behaviour is widely recognized as a red flag for problem gambling: repeated deposits, continued play over long periods, and visible compulsive activity. These are the moments when operators are expected to act by reaching out, imposing limits, restricting accounts, or offering support. 1xBet did none of these things.

Instead, they continued to accept deposits and have refused to provide access to an ADR body, despite this being a requirement under their own terms and conditions. The fact that these warning signs were ignored, combined with the refusal of ADR, clearly demonstrates a breach of duty of care.

What makes this even more concerning is that Casino.Guru has acknowledged similar failures in other cases, such as the RealSpin complaint, where it was stated that "operators must react accordingly to self-exclusion requests and restrict accounts in a reasonable timeframe." The same standard must be applied here.

I am requesting that this complaint be reviewed again and that the outcome reflect the reality of this situation: that 1xBet ignored a self-exclusion request, accepted deposits during a period of compulsive gambling, and failed to meet their obligations to protect a vulnerable customer.

want to explain something clearly because it’s central to why this situation with 1xBet is so serious and why I am both baffled and heartbroken by Casino.Guru’s "verdict." After I submitted a self-exclusion request, I was no longer gambling for fun. I was desperately trying to chase my losses and "get back to even." That is not recreational behaviour. It is compulsive gambling, which is one of the clearest signs of a gambling problem.

1xBet has suggested that I was "in control" of my actions. That is not true. Even though I knew I had asked to self-exclude, I was in a state of impaired control. My decisions were driven by compulsion, not rational thought. I was so focused on recovering what I had lost that I did not fully understand how much more I was losing. That is exactly why responsible gambling protections exist: to protect players when they are no longer able to protect themselves.

The idea that I was "in control" does not hold up in a situation like this. My behaviour was the direct result of gambling harm. Once the company knew I wanted to stop, they had a duty to step in and stop accepting deposits. Instead, they continued to accept my money and even offered incentives, despite knowing that my consent was withdrawn. At that point, I was no longer acting with free and informed consent, and they had a legal and ethical obligation to protect me, but they did not.

I now understand that I will need to seek legal counsel, but I want to make it clear that this outcome is unjust. Both 1xBet and Casino.Guru have failed to uphold the basic principles of responsible gambling and player protection.

I thought you were better than that.

The more you write and refer to out-of-context statements from another case, the further we move from the only relevant issue here.

Your original demand was for a refund of all deposits made after your self-exclusion request. The complaint was closed because there was insufficient evidence to support that request. The communication you provided did not clearly indicate that you had disclosed a gambling problem before July 24th — and without that, we cannot claim that 1xBet failed to act on a confirmed responsible gambling concern.

That’s the entire point. Everything else you’ve written since then is interpretation, not evidence.

If you cannot clearly prove that you informed the casino about your gambling problem and asked for exclusion on that basis, there is simply no factual ground for reopening the case or expecting a different outcome.

I’m sorry, but this is now just a repetition of opinions without acknowledging the key issue. I believe we’ve already given you more than enough space to express your views, but unless you can present new, verifiable proof, this discussion will not continue.

I genuinely wish you strength in dealing with your situation, but our part in this matter has ended.

I want to clarify something that seems to have been overlooked in your reasoning. On May 23, 2025, I submitted a formal self-exclusion request for a period of one year due to serious gambling-related harm. I followed up again on May 30, 2025, and May 31, 2025, and also spoke with one of their agents by phone to explain my problem and confirm the status of my account.

While I may not have explicitly used the words "gambling problem" before July 24, I did state clearly that continued gambling was causing harm to my wellbeing, and that distinction is important. Under responsible gambling standards, once a player communicates that gambling is negatively impacting their wellbeing, that is sufficient to trigger the operator’s duty of care.

It is not a legal or ethical requirement for someone to self-diagnose with the phrase "gambling problem." In fact, many people experiencing harm never use those exact words, and that is precisely why operators are required to act on any indication of harm or withdrawal of consent.

Despite my clear statement about harm and my request to stop, the operator continued to accept tens of thousands in deposits. That decision directly contradicts the purpose of responsible gambling safeguards, which exist to protect players at the very moment they indicate harm, not only when they use a specific phrase.

I have now escalated this matter to the regulator and may seek legal counsel to recover the funds accepted after my consent was withdrawn. I’m disappointed that Casino.Guru has chosen to reduce this to semantics rather than address the core issue. I truly believed your platform was better than that.

Hi Luckylarry61,

I understand what you’re trying to explain, but this doesn’t change anything about the conclusion.

You keep saying that you mentioned harm and that this should have been enough. I agree with the general idea, but mediation is about more than what is minimally acceptable. It’s about what can be proven beyond interpretation.

In the communication you provided, there simply isn’t a clear moment where you told the casino that you were suffering from gambling-related harm before July 24. You may feel it was implied, but implication is not proof, and without that, I just can’t stand behind your claim.

That’s not semantics. That’s the core reason the case was closed.

I’ve already gone through this with you several times, and I don’t see any new evidence here. At this point, continuing the discussion won’t change the outcome, so I’ll be leaving it here.

I would like clarification on one key point. On May 23 and again on May 30, I submitted formal self-exclusion requests where I explicitly stated that gambling was causing "significant financial losses" and was negatively impacting "my well-being." Under responsible gambling frameworks, those two statements alone are considered sufficient evidence of gambling harm and are meant to trigger protective obligations from the operator.

I am therefore struggling to understand how this was not considered enough by your team. The purpose of responsible gambling policies is to protect players before they are in crisis. Clearly communicating that gambling is harming both my finances and my well-being is a textbook example of why those protections exist.

By dismissing these statements as insufficient, it suggests that a player must self-diagnose and use specific language in order to receive protection — which is not how these safeguards are designed to work. I am asking for an explanation of how these clear indications of harm did not meet the threshold for action, because from a regulatory and ethical perspective, they unquestionably should have.

I really appreciate that we’ve reached this point in the discussion, because now it’s much clearer what you considered to be your self-exclusion request. I wasn’t the one who handled your case, but since we all follow the same principles, I can try to explain why things turned out the way they did.

What you wrote back then, that gambling was causing "significant financial losses" and was "negatively impacting your wellbeing," absolutely shows that you were in distress. But from a procedural point of view, that still isn’t the same as saying, "I need to stop; please close my account permanently because I can’t control my gambling."

And I completely understand why this difference can feel unfair. What someone in a difficult moment considers a clear cry for help might, in another context, sound like a regular complaint or even a bonus request. That’s the reality casinos deal with every day, because most players contact them to keep playing or to get an advantage and gain something for free eventually. The system only works if the intention to stop is made absolutely clear.

It’s also important to note that a self-exclusion due to gambling addiction is not handled the same way as a regular self-exclusion. When a player explicitly admits a gambling problem, a responsible casino won’t later consider requests to reopen the account. That’s part of the moral duty that comes with responsible gambling measures. Only once that admission is made can the operator properly assess the player’s motivation for sharing those concerns.

As it stands, since there was no clear mention of addiction and your message wasn’t specific enough, the account could remain open longer. And yes, retention practices play a role too. I know that linking these two things might sound uncomfortable, but that’s the reality of how these systems work.

Admitting that gambling has become a problem is incredibly hard, but it’s also the one thing that makes all the difference. Unless the casino clearly understands that, it simply won’t act beyond the standard measures.

I know this isn’t the answer you hoped for, but I do hope it helps you if you ever need to close your account the same way without delays.

Thank you for your reply. I appreciate the clarification, but I want to express why I find this explanation deeply troubling from both a responsible gambling and regulatory perspective.

On May 23 and again on May 30, I did not simply offer a casual complaint. I explicitly stated that gambling was causing "significant financial losses" and was negatively impacting "my well-being." Those are not routine customer service comments, and they are not bonus-related language. They are direct indicators of gambling-related harm, and under virtually every responsible gambling framework, they should have been treated as such.

In addition to those written requests, I also stated over the phone that I had a gambling problem. But even if that verbal admission were ignored, the written language I used was clear. Stating that gambling was destroying my finances and harming my wellbeing is, in itself, a statement that I was experiencing a gambling problem. It should never require a specific phrase for an operator to recognize that and act accordingly.

The idea that a player must use a precise legal or clinical phrase such as "I have a gambling addiction" before protections are activated undermines the entire purpose of responsible gambling policies. These safeguards exist to protect individuals when they show signs of harm, not only when they self-diagnose. Many people struggling with gambling-related harm never use the word "addiction," and the industry itself recognizes this reality.

Moreover, your response inadvertently highlights a much larger problem: retention practices were prioritized over duty of care. Once I communicated that gambling was harming both my finances and my wellbeing, the appropriate action would have been to immediately suspend my account and initiate protective measures, not to interpret my message as ambiguous or treat it as an opportunity to retain me as a customer.

If regulators required players to perfectly phrase their distress in order to receive protection, responsible gambling policies would be meaningless. The language I used was more than sufficient to demonstrate harm, and the decision to continue accepting deposits after those warnings reflects a failure to act in line with the industry’s stated obligations.

I am asking once more for an explanation of how those explicit indications of harm did not trigger intervention, because from a regulatory, ethical, and human perspective, they unquestionably should have.

Thanks for explaining it further. I really appreciate that we’ve managed to get this far, because now it’s much clearer what you meant by your original request. We "lack" a regulatory perspective because that requires a different approach based on the casino's license, and we are not the licensor.

For the licensing authority standpoint, please contact the authority.

Instead, we use common fairness standards; hence, my responses pretty much sound the same.

https://casino.guru/guide/fair-gambling 👈

I’ll try to explain this as simply as possible. There’s a big difference between signs that someone might have a gambling problem and an actual self-exclusion request because of a gambling problem. What you wrote back then would definitely sound worrying, but it still isn’t the same as clearly saying "I have a gambling problem, please close my account permanently."

Casinos deal with all kinds of players every day, including people trying to get bonuses or refunds, so they need clear statements before they take action like closing an account permanently. When someone directly admits they’ve lost control, that’s the moment when the rules around responsible gambling really kick in and things like future reopening or refund eligibility come into play.

I get that what you wrote felt serious to you at the time, and I don’t doubt it was. But from the outside, if it’s not clearly said, it just doesn’t trigger the same kind of responsibility on the casino’s side. That’s why it was handled the way it was.

I know this probably isn’t the answer you were hoping for, but I hope it helps make sense of why the case turned out as it did.

Thank you for the follow-up, but I must respectfully push back on the idea that a player must use a specific phrase for responsible gambling obligations to apply. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of how those protections are designed to work.

On May 23 and again on May 30, I did not send a vague or casual message. I clearly stated that gambling was causing "significant financial losses" and was harming my "well-being." Those are textbook indicators of gambling-related harm, and under virtually every responsible gambling framework, they are more than sufficient to trigger protective intervention. Requiring a player in distress to self-diagnose and explicitly declare "I have a gambling problem" is not only unrealistic, it directly undermines the purpose of those safeguards.

It is also important to clarify that on May 30, during a phone call with 1xBet, I explicitly stated that I had a gambling problem and needed to stop. That verbal admission removed any possible ambiguity about the situation. At that point, the operator had both written and verbal evidence that I was experiencing harm, and they still continued to accept deposits and offer incentives.

The gambling industry itself acknowledges that many individuals experiencing harm do not use clinical or legal language. That is why operators are obligated to act on signs of harm, not just on perfectly phrased statements. Suggesting otherwise places the burden of responsibility back on vulnerable individuals, instead of on the licensed operator, who has a legal and ethical duty to prevent further harm once notified.

I understand Casino.Guru may not be in a position to enforce regulatory standards, but dismissing this situation as "insufficient" is a disservice to the very people responsible gambling policies are meant to protect. The evidence shows that I communicated harm clearly and repeatedly, in writing and verbally, and that those warnings were ignored. At that point, continuing to accept deposits was not a misunderstanding. It was a failure of duty.