Konačni odgovor
Ponovo, ovaj slučaj se ne odnosi na lošu uslugu ili kašnjenja. Radi se o direktnom kršenju obaveza odgovornog kockanja i nezakonitim depozitima prihvaćenim nakon validnog zahteva za samoisključenje.
1. Zanemareni zahtevi za isključenje (od 23. maja nadalje)
Dana 23. maja 2025. godine, podneo sam pisani zahtev za samoisključenje zbog problema sa kockanjem. Nastavio sam pismeni odgovor 31. maja, a kasnije sam direktno obavestio agente da imam problem sa kockanjem i da mi je očajnički potrebno zatvaranje računa. To su bila tri jasna zahteva za isključenje koja su trebalo da pokrenu trenutnu zaštitu. Umesto toga, kazino nije reagovao.
2. Prihvatanje nezakonitih depozita
Između 23. maja i 25. juna 2025. godine, uplatio sam 74.666 kanadskih dolara (54.200 američkih dolara). Svaki dolar je uplaćen nakon mog početnog zahteva za isključenje. Prema obavezama odgovornog kockanja, ovi depoziti nikada nisu smeli biti prihvaćeni. Činjenica da su dozvoljeni pokazuje ozbiljan propust u zaštiti igrača.
3. Lažna tvrdnja o trenutnom zatvaranju u julu
Kazino tvrdi da je moj nalog zatvoren „odmah" nakon što sam prijavio zavisnost u julu. To je netačno. Moj nalog je zatvoren tek nakon što sam eskalirao slučaj spolja preko AskGamblers-a. Da je zatvaranje zaista bilo trenutno, intervencija bi se dogodila u trenutku kada je zavisnost prijavljena. Umesto toga, zatvaranje je zahtevalo spoljni pritisak, što je dokaz kašnjenja i nehata.
4. Priznanje samog operatera protivreči njegovoj odbrani
Dana 11. avgusta 2025. godine, u javnom odgovoru TrustPilot-u, sam 1xBet je napisao:
„Vaš nalog je blokiran zbog zavisnosti od kockanja. Da, mi smo protiv zavisnosti. Naš sajt postoji za zabavu i opuštanje. Za sve postoji mera."
Ovo priznanje dokazuje dve stvari:
Operator priznaje da sam pretrpeo štetu povezanu sa kockanjem.
Operator potvrđuje da je zatvaranje povezano sa zavisnošću od kockanja.
To direktno protivreči njihovoj tvrdnji da je zatvaranje zasnovano samo na izjavi iz jula. Ako je zatvaranje bilo zbog zavisnosti, onda su moji početni zahtevi iz maja, gde sam otkrio problem sa kockanjem, bili validni zahtevi za isključenje. Ignorišući ih i prihvatajući skoro 75.000 dolara depozita, operater je prekršio obaveze odgovornog kockanja.
Zaključak
Ovaj slučaj nije o semantici ili o tome da li sam 23. maja upotrebio tačnu reč „zavisnost". Radi se o dužnosti operatera da deluje nakon što je podnet zahtev za isključenje. Tri zahteva su ignorisana, desetine hiljada dolara su nezakonito prihvaćene, a zatvaranje je usledilo tek kada je to bilo primorano spoljnim pritiskom. Njihovo sopstveno pisano priznanje dokazuje osnovu moje žalbe.
Vremenski okvir, činjenice i samo priznanje operatera dokazuju istu poentu: 1xBet je ignorisao valjane zahteve za isključenje, prihvatao nezakonite depozite i delovao je samo pod spoljnim pritiskom. Ovo nije greška igrača. Ovo je regulatorni propust.
Final Rebuttal
Again, this case is not about poor service or delays. It is about a direct breach of responsible gambling obligations and unlawful deposits accepted after a valid self-exclusion request.
1. Ignored Exclusion Requests (May 23 onward)
On May 23, 2025, I submitted a written request for self-exclusion due to a gambling problem. I followed up in writing on May 31 and later directly telling agents that I had a gambling problem and desperately needed my account closed. These were three clear exclusion requests that should have triggered immediate protection. Instead, the casino failed to act.
2. Unlawful Deposits Accepted
Between May 23 and June 25, 2025, I deposited CAD $74,666 (USD $54,200). Every single dollar was deposited after my initial exclusion request. Under responsible gambling obligations, these deposits should never have been accepted. The fact that they were allowed shows a serious failure to protect the player.
3. False Claim of Immediate Closure in July
The casino claims my account was closed "immediately" after I raised addiction in July. That is false. My account was only closed after I escalated the case externally through AskGamblers. If closure had truly been immediate, intervention would have occurred the moment addiction was raised. Instead, closure required outside pressure, which is proof of delay and negligence.
4. Operator’s Own Admission Contradicts Their Defense
On August 11, 2025, in a public TrustPilot response, 1xBet themselves wrote:
"Your account has been blocked due to gambling addiction. Yes, we are against addiction. Our site exists for entertainment and relaxation. There is a measure for everything."
This admission proves two things:
The operator acknowledges I was suffering from gambling-related harm.
The operator confirms the closure was linked to gambling addiction.
That directly contradicts their claim that closure was based only on a July statement. If closure was for addiction, then my initial May requests where I disclosed a gambling problem were valid exclusion requests. By ignoring them and accepting nearly $75,000 in deposits, the operator breached responsible gambling obligations.
Conclusion
This case is not about semantics or whether I used the exact word "addiction" on May 23. It is about the operator’s duty to act once an exclusion request is made. Three requests were ignored, tens of thousands of dollars were unlawfully accepted, and closure only came when outside pressure forced it. Their own written admission proves the basis of my complaint.
The timeline, the facts, and the operator’s own admission all prove the same point: 1xBet ignored valid exclusion requests, accepted unlawful deposits, and only acted under outside pressure. This is not player error. This is regulatory failure.
Izmenjeno
Automatski prevedeno: