Kasnije ovog dana ću ovo poslati i na čet i na imejl
Poštovani odeljenju za žalbe kompanije GambleZen.
Podnosim ovu zvaničnu žalbu u vezi sa vašim neuspehom da me zaštitite kao ranjivog igrača, uprkos tome što sam više puta obavešten o mojoj teškoj zavisnosti od kockanja i neposrednom riziku od gubitka dobitka.
Nakon što sam osvojio 4.303,54 evra, nekoliko puta sam kontaktirao vašu podršku pre nego što su sredstva izgubljena. Izričito sam vas obavestio da patim od ozbiljnog problema sa kockanjem i da neću moći da kontrolišem svoje kockanje ako sredstva ostanu dostupna na mom računu.
U svojim imejlovima sam jasno naveo:
„Imam problem sa igrama, tako da mi je zaista potrebna vaša pomoć da me zaštitim od gubitka novca na računu dok se ne povuče."
„Treba mi da podignete ceo iznos u jednoj transakciji. Ne mogu da podižem novac svaka 24 sata jer ću tada izgubiti novac."
„Ne mogu da se nosim sa igrama i izgubiću sav novac ako ti ne uradiš."
Takođe sam zatražio konkretne mere za odgovorno kockanje, uključujući:
Uklanjanje moje mogućnosti da otkažem čekajuća povlačenja;
Primena ograničenja gubitka od 1 evra;
Zaštita mog preostalog stanja dok se sva isplata ne završi;
Zatvaranje mog računa nakon što su svi isplativi iznosi isplaćeni.
Vaša podrška je potvrdila da alati za odgovorno kockanje koje sam zahtevao, uključujući zaštitu od povlačenja i ograničenja gubitaka, nisu bili dostupni jer su još uvek bili u fazi finalizacije i testiranja. Uprkos tome što ste imali stvarno saznanje o mom poremećaju kockanja i neposrednom riziku koji sam opisao, niste implementirali nikakve alternativne zaštitne mere. Istovremeno, održavali ste ograničenje povlačenja od 500 evra dnevno, ostavljajući većinu mojih dobitaka dostupnom za kockanje tokom nekoliko dana.
Desio se tačan ishod na koji sam vas upozorio. Pošto su moji zahtevi za zaštitu odbijeni, a moj dobitak je ostao dostupan, izgubio sam ceo preostali iznos.
REZIME PREKRŠENjA POLITIKE – NEPOŠTOVANjE PROPISA ODGOVORNOG KOCKANjA GAMBLEZEN
Neobezbeđivanje funkcionalnosti hlađenja (kršenje obaveznih zahteva)
Operator eksplicitno navodi da opcija za hlađenje mora biti dostupna igračima kao deo njegovih obaveza odgovornog kockanja.
Međutim, uprkos ovom navedenom zahtevu, operater ne pruža nikakav jasno definisan, pristupačan ili funkcionalan mehanizam za odustajanje od odgovornosti u okviru svojih Uslova, okvira za odgovorno kockanje ili operativnih opisa.
Jedini opisani alat za sprečavanje štete je samoisključenje, koje se značajno razlikuje po obimu i funkciji. Samoisključenje je dugoročno ili trajno ograničenje, dok je hlađenje-prekid obavezan kratkoročni interventni alat namenjen da omogući igračima da privremeno pauziraju aktivnosti kockanja bez potpunog zatvaranja naloga.
Odsustvo alata za hlađenje predstavlja direktan propust u sprovođenju obavezne zaštitne mere za odgovorno kockanje, što znači da operater nije u skladu sa sopstvenim navedenim okvirom kontrole odgovornog kockanja.
Nedovoljna pristupačnost i sprovođenje odgovornog kockanja
Operator tvrdi da informacije o odgovornom kockanju i podrška u slučaju zavisnosti moraju biti istaknute. Međutim:
Nema garancije dosledne istaknutosti na svim korisničkim interfejsima
Nema verifikacije sprovođenja višejezične pristupačnosti
Nije definisan standard za usklađenost sa korisničkim interfejsom
To rezultira delimičnim i neproverenim poštovanjem obaveza pristupačnosti.
ZAKLjUČAK
Okvir odgovornog kockanja operatera sadrži više obaveznih zahteva koji su:
Nije implementirano (Funkcionalnost hlađenja)
Samo delimično implementirano (Kontrole samoisključivanja)
Nije dokazano operativno (praćenje ponašanja, obuka osoblja, marketinške mere zaštite)
Najznačajnije je da odsustvo alata za hlađenje predstavlja direktno kršenje navedenog obaveznog zahteva, stvarajući značajan nedostatak u kontrolama zaštite igrača.
Smatram da je ovo ozbiljno kršenje vaših obaveza odgovornog kockanja. Unapred sam vas upozorio, tačno objasnio šta će se desiti, zatražio razumne zaštitne mere i jasno stavio do znanja da je moja namera da povučem svoj dobitak i trajno zatvorim svoj račun.
Nakon što ste me obavestili da zaštita od povlačenja i ograničenje gubitka nisu dostupni, odmah sam predložio razumnu alternativu. Zatražio sam da mi se ceo iznos isplati u jednoj transakciji jer je vaš dnevni limit povlačenja od 500 evra ostavio preostala sredstva neizložena.
Izričito sam te upozorio:
„Potrebno mi je da podignete ceo iznos u jednoj transakciji. Ne mogu da podižem parove svakih 24 sata jer ću tada izgubiti novac."
Uprkos ovom jasnom upozorenju, nije pružena alternativna zaštita i dnevni limit za isplatu je ostao na snazi. Predvidljiva posledica je bila da su moji dobici ostali dostupni za kockanje, što je rezultiralo tačno onim gubitkom na koji sam vas više puta upozoravao.
Stoga smatram GambleZen odgovornim za gubitak mog dobitka i zahtevam nadoknadu u iznosu od 2.803,54 evra. Kao što ste već potvrdili.
Later this day i send this to both chat and email
Dear GambleZen Complaints Department.
I am submitting this formal complaint regarding your failure to protect me as a vulnerable player despite being repeatedly informed about my severe gambling addiction and my immediate risk of losing my winnings.
After winning €4,303.54, I contacted your support on several occasions before the funds were lost. I explicitly informed you that I suffer from a serious gambling problem and that I would not be able to control my gambling if the funds remained available in my account.
In my emails I clearly stated:
"I have gaming problem, so I really need you to help protect me from losing the money on my account until they have been withdrawn."
"I need you to withdraw my total amount in one transaction. I can’t make withdrawals every 24 hours because I am going to lose the money then."
"I can’t handle my gaming and will lose all money if you don’t."
I also requested specific responsible gambling measures, including:
Removing my ability to cancel pending withdrawals;
Applying a €1 loss limit;
Protecting my remaining balance until all withdrawals had been completed;
Closing my account once all withdrawals had been paid.
Your support acknowledged that the responsible gambling tools I requested, including withdrawal protection and loss limits, were unavailable because they were still being finalized and tested. Despite having actual knowledge of my gambling disorder and the immediate risk I described, you did not implement any alternative protective measures. At the same time, you maintained a withdrawal limit of €500 per day, leaving the majority of my winnings accessible for gambling over several days.
The exact outcome that I warned you about occurred. Because my requests for protection were refused and my winnings remained available, I lost the entire remaining balance.
SUMMARY OF POLICY BREACHES – GAMBLEZEN RESPONSIBLE GAMBLING NON-COMPLIANCE
Failure to provide Cooling-Off functionality (Mandatory Requirement Breach)
The operator explicitly references that a Cooling-Off option must be available to players as part of its responsible gambling obligations.
However, despite this stated requirement, the operator does not provide any clearly defined, accessible, or functional cooling-off mechanism within its Terms, Responsible Gambling framework, or operational descriptions.
The only harm prevention tool described is self-exclusion, which is materially different in scope and function. Self-exclusion is a long-term or permanent restriction, whereas cooling-off is a mandatory short-term intervention tool intended to allow players to pause gambling activity temporarily without full account closure.
The absence of a cooling-off tool constitutes a direct failure to implement a mandatory responsible gambling safeguard, meaning the operator is not compliant with its own stated RG control framework.
Insufficient Responsible Gambling accessibility and enforcement
The operator claims that responsible gambling information and addiction support must be prominently displayed. However:
No assurance of consistent prominence across all user interfaces
No verification of multilingual accessibility enforcement
No UI compliance standard is defined
This results in partial and unverified compliance with accessibility obligations.
CONCLUSION
The operator’s Responsible Gambling framework contains multiple mandatory requirements that are either:
Not implemented (Cooling-Off functionality)
Only partially implemented (Self-Exclusion controls)
Not demonstrably operational (Behaviour tracking, staff training, marketing safeguards)
Most significantly, the absence of a Cooling-Off tool represents a direct breach of a stated mandatory requirement, creating a material gap in player protection controls.
I consider this a serious failure to meet your responsible gambling obligations. I warned you in advance, explained exactly what would happen, requested reasonable protective measures, and made it clear that my intention was to withdraw my winnings and permanently close my account.
After you informed me that withdrawal protection and loss limit were unavailable, I immediately proposed a reasonable alternative. I requested that my entire balance be paid out in a single transaction because your daily withdrawal limit of €500 left the remaining funds exposed.
I explicitly warned you:
"I need you to withdraw my total amount in one transaction. I can’t make parts of withdrawal every 24 hours because I am going to lose the money then."
Despite this clear warning, no alternative protection was provided and the daily withdrawal limit remained in place. The foreseeable consequence was that my winnings remained accessible for gambling, resulting in the exact loss that I had repeatedly warned you about.
I therefore hold GambleZen responsible for the loss of my winnings and request compensation in the amount of €2,803.54. As you already has confirm.
Automatski prevedeno: