1. Ponovljeni pokušaji zatvaranja računa
U roku od otprilike nedelju dana, pokušao sam pet puta da zatvorim svoj nalog zbog zabrinutosti u vezi sa mojim kockarskim ponašanjem. Svaki put:
- Moj zahtev je pokrenuo obavezni period odlaganja od 24 sata, i
- Moj nalog nije odmah zatvoren niti potpuno ograničen tokom tog perioda.
2. Nastavak kockanja tokom perioda hlađenja
U četiri od pet slučajeva, uprkos pokretanju zatvaranja računa:
- I dalje sam mogao/mogla da pristupim svom nalogu;
- Nastavite sa uplatom sredstava;
- Postavljajte opklade tokom perioda hlađenja;
- Rezultat su značajni gubici u kratkom vremenskom roku.
Ovo ukazuje da mehanizam hlađenja nije funkcionisao kao efikasno ograničenje kockarskih aktivnosti tokom predviđenog zaštitnog perioda.
3. Nepoštovanje zaštitnih mera odgovornog kockanja
Iako razumem da su periodi hlađenja osmišljeni kao mehanizam odlaganja, u praksi je sistem kompanije dozvoljavao nastavak kockarskih aktivnosti tokom višestrukih ponovljenih pokušaja ograničenja u kratkom periodu. Pored toga, kompanija je nastavila da šalje promotivne i bonus imejlove tokom ovih privremenih i eventualnih samoisključenja, suprotno propisima kompanije Anjouan Gaming. Tek kada sam se obratio kompaniji da se žalim, na kraju mi je uskraćen pristup mom nalogu i efikasno sam trajno samoisključen. Pre nego što sam se obratio, i dalje sam mogao da pristupim svojim nalozima, bonusima i primao sam promotivne imejlove. Takođe mi nije data trenutna opcija da podesim duži period samoisključenja nakon što se period hlađenja završi, već sam umesto toga dobio imejl dobrodošlice.
4. Šteta nastala usled neuspeha
Kao direktna posledica ovih ponovljenih neuspeha kontrole:
- Mogao/la sam da nastavim sa kockanjem tokom perioda kada sam aktivno pokušavao/la da zaustavim pristup svom nalogu i:
- Pretrpeo sam značajne gubitke koji bi verovatno bili izbegnuti da je račun bio pravilno ograničen tokom perioda hlađenja, a nastavak kockanja nije bio podstican nakon što je period hlađenja „istekao".
5. Pogrešna primena klauzule o odgovornosti za samoisključenje
Uslovi odgovornog kockanja kompanije navode da:
- Korisnici su odgovorni za svoje postupke tokom samoisključivanja, i;
- Operator nije odgovoran za gubitke nastale tokom perioda isključenja.
Međutim, ova klauzula pretpostavlja da je funkcionalan i efikasan sistem ograničenja na snazi nakon što se pokrene zahtev za hlađenje ili isključenje. Taj uslov nije ispunjen u ovom slučaju. Dalje, kompanija ne preduzima odgovorne mere kako bi osigurala da igrač može da izvrši dalje samoisključenje nakon neposrednog i potrebnog perioda hlađenja. Takođe, kompanija nije preduzela razumne korake kako bi osigurala bezbednost igrača s obzirom na broj perioda hlađenja i depozita/opklada u tako kratkom vremenskom periodu.
Odricanje od odgovornosti ne može se razumno primeniti kada:
- Alat za ograničenje ne sprečava kontinuirani pristup ili klađenje, i;
- Ponovljena aktivacija alata u kratkom vremenskom periodu ne proizvodi nikakvo značajno ograničenje aktivnosti naloga.
U takvim okolnostima, problem nije zaobilaženje od strane korisnika, već sistemski kvar samog zaštitnog mehanizma.
6. Regulatorna očekivanja
Prema okvirima za licenciranje ofšornih područja kao što je Anžuan, operateri su generalno obavezni da održavaju:
- Funkcionalni alati za odgovorno kockanje;
- Efikasno sprovođenje samoisključenja i hlađenja, i;
- Adekvatne mere zaštite za sprečavanje nastavka kockanja tokom aktivnih restrikcija.
Iako su ovi okviri manje propisivi od regulatora Velike Britanije ili EU, oni se i dalje oslanjaju na princip da alati za odgovorno kockanje moraju biti operativno efikasni, a ne samo dostupni po imenu. Sistem koji dozvoljava nastavak kockanja tokom ponovljenih aktivnih perioda hlađenja ne bi ispunio to osnovno očekivanje, posebno tamo gde je operater eksplicitno označio takve alate i zaštitne mere. Ista logika se primenjuje kada višestruki zahtevi za period hlađenja od 24 sata u kratkom vremenskom okviru ne dovode do dužeg perioda samoisključenja, već kompanija ponovo dočekuje igrače da nastave sa kockanjem dok su u ranjivom stanju.
7. Zahtevana rezolucija
S obzirom na okolnosti, molim vas:
1. Potpun pregled alata kompanije za odgovorno kockanje;
2. Pisano objašnjenje zašto je kockarska aktivnost bila dozvoljena i podsticana tokom traženih perioda samoisključenja;
3. Pregled politike kompanije u vezi sa promotivnim oglašavanjem tokom perioda samoisključenja i;
4. Potpuni povraćaj neto gubitaka nastalih sa mog računa, u ukupnom iznosu od 3680 kanadskih dolara.
Ova žalba je podneta u dobroj veri i potkrepljena je evidencijom aktivnosti na nalogu i vremenskim oznakama zahteva za zatvaranje i aktivnosti kockanja.
1. Repeated Attempts to Close Account
Within a period of approximately one week, I made five separate attempts to close my account due to concerns about my gambling behavior. On each occasion:
- My request triggered a mandatory 24-hour cooling-off period, and
- My account was not immediately closed or fully restricted during that time.
2. Continued Gambling During Cooling-Off Periods
In four out of the five instances, despite initiating account closure:
- I was still able to access my account;
- Continue depositing funds;
- Place bets during the cooling-off period;
- Resulting in significant losses within a short timeframe.
This indicates that the cooling-off mechanism did not function as an effective restriction on gambling activity during the intended protection window.
3. Failure of Responsible Gambling Safeguards
While I understand that cooling-off periods are designed as a delay mechanism, in practice the company’s system allowed continued gambling activity during multiple repeated restriction attempts within a short period. In addition, the company continued to send promotional and bonus emails during these temporary and eventual self-exclusions, contrary to Anjouan Gaming regulations. Only when I reached out to the company to complain was I eventually not allowed access to my account and effectively permanently self-excluded. Before reaching out, I was still able to access my accounts, bonuses, and received promotional emails. I was also not given an immediate option to set a longer self-exclusion period once the cooling-off period had ended, and instead received a "welcome back" email.
4. Harm Resulting From Failure
As a direct result of these repeated control failures:
- I was able to continue gambling during periods where I was actively attempting to stop access to my account, and:
- I incurred significant losses that would likely have been avoided had the acount been properly restricted during the cooling-off periods, and continued gambling was not encouraged once the cooling-off period had "expired".
5. Misapplication of the Self-Exclusion Liability Clause
The company’s Responsible Gambling terms state that:
- Users are responsible for their actions during self-exclusion, and;
- The operator is not liable for losses incurred during exclusion periods.
However, this clause presumes that a functioning and effective restriction system is in place once a cooling-off or exclusion request is triggered. That condition was not met in this case. Further, the company does not take responsible measures to ensure a player can make a further self-exclusion after the immediate and required cooling-off period. As well, the company did not take reasonable steps to ensure player safety given the amount of cooling-off periods and deposits/bets within such a short period of time.
A liability disclaimer cannot reasonably apply where:
- The restriction tool does not prevent continued access or wagering, and;
- Repeated activation of the tool within a short period of time does not produce any meaningful limitation on account activity.
In such circumstances, the issue is not user circumvention, but system failure of the protective mechanism itself.
6. Regulatory Expectations
Under offshore licensing frameworks such as Anjouan, operators are generally required to maintain:
- Functional responsible gambling tools;
- Effective self-exclusion and cooling-off enforcement, and;
- Adequate safeguards to prevent continued gambling during active restriction states.
While these frameworks are less prescriptive than UK or EU regulators, they still rely on the principle that responsible gambling tools must be operationally effective, not merely available in name. A system that allows continued gambling during repeated active cooling-off periods would fall short of that baseline expectation, particularly where the operator has explicitly marked such tools and protective safeguards. The same logic applies when multiple requests for a 24 hour cooling-off period in a short timeframe do not lead to a longer self-exclusion period, but rather the players are welcomed back by the company to continue gambling while in a vulnerable state.
7. Requested Resolution
Given the circumstances, I am requesting:
1. A full review of the company’s Responsible Gambling tools;
2. A written explanation of why gambling activity was allowed and encouraged during requested self-exclusion periods;
3. A review of the company’s policy regarding promotional advertising during self-exclusion periods, and;
4. A full refund of net losses incurred from my account, totaling $3680 (CAD).
This complaint is submitted in good faith and is supported by account activity records and timestamps of closure requests and gambling activity.
Automatski prevedeno: