Podnosim ovu žalbu u vezi sa načinom na koji je Mocart Kazino postupao sa mojim neodređenim samoisključenjem i mojim naknadnim gubicima od 2.387 evra.
Prethodno sam aktivirao neodređeno samoisključenje na svom Mozzart nalogu. Kasnije sam zatražio da uklonim/promenim isključenje preko interfejsa naloga. Mozzart jeste sproveo sedmodnevni period hlađenja, ali me nisu pitali zašto sam se prvobitno isključio, zašto želim da se vratim kockanju ili da li su se moje okolnosti promenile. Posle sedam dana, ponovo sam mogao da se kockam.
Nakon ponovnog otvaranja mog računa, uplatio sam i izgubio ukupno 2.387 evra.
Verujem da je ovo posebno zabrinjavajuće jer je istorija mog naloga sadržala nekoliko potencijalnih indikatora rizika odgovornog kockanja, uključujući samoisključenje, otkazana povlačenja, upite za bonuse i rizično ponašanje u vezi sa kockanjem/depozitom.
Žalio sam se direktno kompaniji Mozzart i zatražio povraćaj novca od 2.387 evra. Mozzart je odbio moj zahtev, navodeći da je sedmodnevni period hlađenja ispoštovan i da njegovi sistemi za praćenje nisu identifikovali nivoe rizika koji zahtevaju trajnu operativnu blokadu.
Posebno sam zamolio Mocarta da objasni kakva je individualna procena sprovedena kada je moje neodređeno samoisključenje poništeno, koje informacije su uzete u obzir u vezi sa razlogom mog isključenja i kako su utvrdili da je poništenje bilo prikladno kada me nikada nisu pitali o mojim okolnostima.
Mocart nije odgovorio na ova pitanja. U svojoj konačnoj izjavi o stavu, jednostavno je naveo da je opoziv „striktno u skladu sa Direktivom 2 MGA iz 2018. (član 11)" i ponovo se osvrnuo na sedmodnevni period hlađenja i opšte praćenje igrača.
Takođe postoje važni dokazi o tome kako Mocartov sistem trenutno funkcioniše. Nakon što sam podneo žalbu, Mocart mi je trajno zatvorio nalog. Međutim, preko interfejsa naloga sam odmah mogao da zahtevam promenu tog trajnog samoisključenja. Nisu me pitali zašto želim da ga promenim, zašto sam isključen ili da li su se moje okolnosti promenile. Sistem je jednostavno prihvatio zahtev i nametnuo još jedan period čekanja od sedam dana pre ponovne aktivacije.
Imam snimke ekrana koji dokumentuju ovaj proces.
Moja žalba, dakle, nije da Mocart nije poštovao sedmodnevni period hlađenja. Jesu ga poštovali.
Moja zabrinutost je da li bi neodređeno samoisključenje trebalo da bude opozivajuće kroz ono što izgleda kao u suštini automatizovani proces bez ikakve smislene procene okolnosti igrača, posebno tamo gde nalog već sadrži indikatore rizika odgovornog kockanja.
Molim Casino Guru da nezavisno pregleda Mozzart-ovu proceduru samoisključivanja i reaktivacije i da li ona pruža adekvatnu zaštitu igračima.
Tražim povraćaj novca u iznosu od 2.387 evra koji sam izgubio nakon ukidanja mog neodređenog samoisključenja.
I am submitting this complaint regarding Mozzart Casino's handling of my indefinite self-exclusion and my subsequent losses of €2,387.
I had previously activated an indefinite self-exclusion on my Mozzart account. I later requested to remove/change the exclusion through the account interface. Mozzart did enforce a seven-day cooling-off period, but I was not asked why I had originally excluded myself, why I wanted to return to gambling, or whether my circumstances had changed. After seven days, I was able to gamble again.
Following the reopening of my account, I deposited and lost a total of €2,387.
I believe this is particularly concerning because my account history contained several potential responsible-gambling risk indicators, including self-exclusion, cancelled withdrawals, bonus enquiries and risky gambling/deposit behaviour.
I complained directly to Mozzart and requested a refund of €2,387. Mozzart rejected my claim, stating that the seven-day cooling-off period had been followed and that its monitoring systems had not identified risk levels requiring a permanent operational block.
I specifically asked Mozzart to explain what individual assessment was carried out when my indefinite self-exclusion was revoked, what information was considered regarding the reason for my exclusion, and how they determined that revocation was appropriate when they had never asked me about my circumstances.
Mozzart did not answer these questions. In its Final Position Statement, it simply stated that the revocation "strictly adhered to MGA Directive 2 of 2018 (Article 11)" and again referred to the seven-day cooling-off period and its general player monitoring.
There is also important evidence regarding how Mozzart's system currently operates. After I submitted my complaint, Mozzart permanently closed my account. However, through the account interface I was immediately able to request a change to that permanent self-exclusion. I was not asked why I wanted to change it, why I had been excluded, or whether my circumstances had changed. The system simply accepted the request and imposed another seven-day waiting period before reactivation.
I have screenshots documenting this process.
My complaint is therefore not that Mozzart failed to observe the seven-day cooling-off period. They did observe it.
My concern is whether an indefinite self-exclusion should be revocable through what appears to be an essentially automated process without any meaningful assessment of the player's circumstances, particularly where the account already contains responsible-gambling risk indicators.
I am asking Casino Guru to independently review Mozzart's self-exclusion and reactivation procedure and whether it provides adequate player protection.
I am requesting a refund of the €2,387 lost following the removal of my indefinite self-exclusion.
Automatski prevedeno: