저는 Infiniza 카지노에서는 스스로 제외했지만 다른 카지노에서는 여전히 플레이할 수 있었습니다.

Hi all,

I wanted to share something that’s been very frustrating, and I’m curious if others have experienced the same.

Earlier this year, I self-excluded from multiple Infiniza-operated casinos, including Lucky Jungle and Overload Casino. Despite this, I was later able to register and gamble on other Infiniza casinos like Refuel and Spinero, using the same personal details.

To me, this seems to go against what MGA requires, as self-exclusion should apply across all brands operating under the same license (MGA/B2C/367/2016 – Infiniza Limited). Still, I received no warning, and was even allowed to deposit and play again.

I’ve asked their support to provide a list of my self-exclusions and dates, but they’ve refused to give that information, which makes it hard for me to document what’s happened.

I haven’t contacted MGA yet, but I’m seriously considering it. Has anyone here had success getting a refund from Infiniza, or had MGA take action in similar cases?

Any advice or shared experiences would be really helpful.

Hello.

This is a very real issue. Let me elaborate, please, because it is quite complicated:

There are currently two basic levels of self-exclusion:

1)Single-operator level: Typically, when self-excluding in an online casino, the self-exclusion does not extend to other operators. This creates a problem: self-excluded players can freely access and play at other casino websites, bringing the overall effectiveness of such self-exclusion schemes into question. The Global Self-Exclusion System (GSES) was created to offer a solution that eliminates this problem.

2) Nationwide/license-wide level: Some countries and online gambling regulators, such as the UK, Sweden, or the Netherlands, operate wider self-exclusion schemes, which require their licensees (operators) to be part of nationwide (license-wide) self-exclusion schemes. These allow players to self-exclude from all casinos licensed in a specific country or by a specific regulator at once, creating a better level of protection.

As of this moment, a player struggling with problem gambling symptoms cannot self-exclude on a global scale. This means that although the player self-excludes on one of the above-mentioned levels, there are still many ways in which players can bypass these self-imposed measures.

The problem I see there is that no international license actually offers a global self-exclusion option to players, which means that the whole process depends on each casino or group, operator, owner, platform...

In some cases you must self-exclude in each casino; in other cases you may get a list of casinos you may self-exclude by single request.

To stay safe, always read the casino rules, ask for support, and save all related communications for later use.

Do you care to discuss how precisely you self-excluded, in this situation, please?

Thank you, Radka, for your response and for taking the time to explain the context.

To clarify: I self-excluded through each individual casino’s responsible gaming/self-exclusion tool (not via email or support), using the standard options offered directly in the user account settings. This was done on multiple Infiniza-operated brands, including Overload and Lucky Jungle. These sites clearly confirmed my self-exclusion and showed my account as permanently closed.

However, shortly after that, I was able to sign up, deposit and play on Refuel and Spinero – using the same personal details, email address, IP address, and payment methods. No warnings were shown, no blocking in place, and no indication that any self-exclusion was active or carried over.

When I contacted Infiniza directly, asking for a full list of casinos I was excluded from (to help me avoid triggering more harm), they refused to provide it. This makes it almost impossible to protect myself.

To me, this suggests their interpretation of self-exclusion is purely brand-level – even when multiple casinos operate under the same MGA license. I find this deeply concerning, as it undermines the intent of the self-exclusion and creates unnecessary risk for vulnerable users.

Do you have any insight into whether MGA has addressed this kind of practice before? And if I submit a formal complaint, could they intervene?

Good day to you and I thank you for helping me with the details.

From what you described, you obviously did what you could and I'm sorry it did not end up very well.

As you can see, there is still a potential gap. Just as I explained the same concepts to other players, including a list of casinos and the "group" matter, I'd like to mention that here too.

I'd say the very first thing I would check is the rules and the group connection with the casino support or manager. I would ask myself:

Does the casino/group/management/affiliate state you can self-exclude per one request in the whole group? Is it mentioned in the rules?

Will the support team confirm this information to the player?

How are potentially new casinos related and how does their system work?

I want to convey that casinos belonging to the same group can have different management teams and operate on various platforms; without a list or concrete confirmation, you will be left empty-handed when issues occur.  Thus, upon successful communication, I would always straightaway demand a list of casinos I have just successfully self-excluded from within the group/owner/brand/label.

If the casinos do no not state group exclusion as an option, I would not expect them to exclude you from the same group and future casinos within a brand/management automatically. 🙁

We deal with similar delicate players' complaints daily, and such lists or proofs of the final confirmation as well as the initiated self-exclusion request are necessary to confront the casino or casinos.

I can say that MGA, or any other internationally used license, does not support global self-exclusion within its own license, so if they are going to address your complaint, you will still have to prove the casino promised to self-exclude you, even at Refuel and Spinero - as far as I can guess. However, feel free to try that; in my opinion, the worst outcome would be a lack of concrete response.

My colleagues from the Complaint Team will surely explain all details associated with the complaint submitted through the Casino Guru Resolution Center and do their best to find the fair stance.

If I may offer some advice, when self-excluding, always read the terms of the group or global exclusion, confirm the list with support, and save the confirmation. Very often a casino will exclude you just from its site. Future casino will obviously never be on the list, so I recommend asking support about it and acting on the response.

Self-exclusion has become a nightmare, in my opinion, due to a lack of consistent and meaningful standards that apply globally. I hope there is a way to help you stay safe.

In just over 14 hours (from 07:07 to 21:28), I deposited multiple transactions ranging from €300 to €9,000, totalling tens of thousands of Euros.

This rapid-fire sequence of high-value deposits is not recreational gambling; it is a textbook example of a player losing control, likely chasing losses, and engaging in highly destructive behaviour.

The Operator’s Failure: No Intervention, No Refund, No Help

Despite this extremely evident pattern—a complete and dangerous departure from my normal activity—Infinzia Ltd. allowed every single successful deposit to go through.

1. ❌ No Intervention: There was no interruption, no phone call, and no email from their responsible gaming team checking on my welfare or enforcing any cooling-off period. They simply accepted the money flow.

2. ❌ No Recognition of Harm: They processed €6,000, then €6,500, then €6,800, then €9,000, all within hours, and treated this as normal business. This demonstrates a complete disregard for their regulatory obligation to protect vulnerable players.

3. ❌ No Refund: Even when the extent of the harm became clear, there has been no offer of a refund for these deposits made while I was clearly in the throes of problematic gambling and they failed their duty of care.

To make matters worse, all of this occurred when I had already tried to self-exclude across their platform (as others in this thread have experienced), and yet they still allowed me to register and spend thousands on an affiliated brand.

This transaction log is conclusive evidence that Infinzia Ltd. is prioritising profit over player safety. They operate a deposit faucet for problem gamblers and provide zero effective intervention or help.

I urge anyone with similar logs or experiences to report them to the relevant licensing body.

I have finally after three years gained access to these files from the licensee, but I can’t do anything

Hello,

Considering the significance of those experiences, I believe you are already aware that you can submit a complaint with us; however, it seems your intention is to inform others and escalate the matter to the licensing authority.

Let me know if you want to talk more, please.

I have already filed the case, but you know. You guys decide.

In that case, feel free to add a link to the case; perhaps others would like to see that too.

I, for example, have sadly no idea which one this is supposed to be.

Up to you, of course.