Draga Katarina,
Hvala vam na odgovoru i razjašnjenju trenutne situacije.
U potpunosti razumem da propisi Kurasaoa ne zahtevaju eksplicitno samoisključenje između različitih brendova među operaterima koji poseduju zajedničku licencu.
Međutim, problem ovde nije u deljenju baze podataka, već u zakonskoj obavezi nosioca licence da se brine o njoj i njegovom neuspehu da zaštiti samoisključenog igrača, kako je to zahtevano Okvirom za odgovorno kockanje Odbora za kontrolu kockanja Kurasaa.
Prema odeljku 2.6 (Odgovornost vlasnika licence) Smernica za odgovorno kockanje GCB-a:
„Imalac licence mora imati mere za zaštitu ranjivih osoba, uključujući igrače koji su se samoisključili, i ima dužnost da identifikuje, prati i ograničava aktivnosti takvih osoba."
Štaviše, član 3.4 (Principi zaštite igrača) navodi da:
„Vlasnici licenci moraju osigurati da su na snazi odgovarajuće mere kako bi se sprečila šteta povezana sa kockanjem i kako bi se osigurao pravedan tretman i zaštita igrača u svakom trenutku."
Kompanija TechSolutions Group NV, nosilac licence za e-igranje na Kurasau br. 8048/JAZ, upravlja sa nekoliko kazina pod istom licencom, uključujući 22Bet, 20Bet, National Casino i Granawin.
Činjenica da sam mogao da otvorim novi nalog i da se kockam na Granawin-u, uprkos tome što sam se već samoisključio iz drugih TechSolutions brendova koristeći iste lične podatke (ime, imejl i zemlju), pokazuje da nije primenjena dužnost pažnje koja se zahteva prema ovim odredbama.
Ovo se ne može odbaciti kao puko tehničko ograničenje — to je sistemski propust u odgovornom kockanju i kršenje uslova licence prema regulatornom okviru Kurasaa.
Stoga, s poštovanjem tvrdim da moj slučaj predstavlja jasno kršenje Pravila o odgovornom kockanju od strane TechSolutions Group NV i ponavljam svoj zahtev za povraćaj 1.750 evra, što predstavlja ukupan iznos izgubljen nakon što operater nije ispunio svoje regulatorne obaveze da zaštiti samoisključenog igrača.
Hvala vam na razumevanju i profesionalizmu u rešavanju ovog pitanja.
Dear Katarina,
Thank you for your response and for clarifying the current position.
I fully understand that Curaçao regulations do not explicitly require cross-brand self-exclusion among operators holding a common license.
However, the issue here is not about database sharing, but rather about the license holder’s legal duty of care and its failure to protect a self-excluded player, as required by the Curaçao Gaming Control Board’s Responsible Gambling Framework.
According to Section 2.6 (License Holder’s Responsibility) of the GCB Responsible Gambling Guidelines:
"The license holder must have measures in place to protect vulnerable persons, including self-excluded players, and has a duty of care to identify, monitor, and restrict the activity of such individuals."
Furthermore, Section 3.4 (Player Protection Principles) states that:
"License holders must ensure that appropriate measures are in place to prevent gambling-related harm and to ensure fair treatment and protection of players at all times."
The company TechSolutions Group N.V., holder of Curaçao eGaming License No. 8048/JAZ, operates several casinos under the same license, including 22Bet, 20Bet, National Casino, and Granawin.
The fact that I was able to open a new account and gamble on Granawin, despite having already self-excluded from other TechSolutions brands using the same personal data (name, email, and country), demonstrates a failure to apply the duty of care required under these provisions.
This cannot be dismissed as a mere technical limitation — it is a systemic Responsible Gambling failure and a breach of license conditions under the Curaçao regulatory framework.
Therefore, I respectfully maintain that my case constitutes a clear Responsible Gambling violation by TechSolutions Group N.V., and I reiterate my request for the refund of €1,750, representing the total amount lost after the operator failed to uphold its regulatory obligations to protect a self-excluded player.
Thank you for your understanding and professionalism in handling this matter.
Automatski prevedeno: