Predmet: Supabet – Nepostupanje nakon povlačenja saglasnosti i neaktivnost regulatora
Borim se sa zavisnošću od kockanja od marta 2025. godine, a Supabetovo ponašanje tokom tog vremena je školski primer kako operateri eksploatišu ranjive igrače umesto da ih štite.
Dana 8. marta 2025. godine, podneo sam pisani zahtev da se moj Supabet nalog zatvori i suspenduje na godinu dana. Taj zahtev je bio jasan i nedvosmislen: trpeo sam štetu i više nisam pristao na kockanje. Uprkos tome, Supabet je držao moj nalog otvorenim više od šest meseci, nastavio da me podstiče bonusima i promocijama i prihvatio je preko 80.704,83 kanadskih dolara depozita, sve nakon što sam izričito povukao svoju saglasnost.
To nisu bili diskrecioni depoziti za zabavu. Uplaćeni su tokom perioda kada sam pokušavao da prestanem, u stanju finansijskog očaja, i nikada nisu smeli biti prihvaćeni. Operatori često pokušavaju da prebace krivicu na igrače ukazujući na kontinuirano kockarsko ponašanje, ali taj argument ignoriše stvarnost zavisnosti. Moji kontinuirani depoziti nisu bili dokaz saglasnosti. Bili su dokaz same štete koju politike odgovornog kockanja treba da reše.
U septembru 2025. godine, čak sam podneo formalno samoisključenje preko regulatora Anžuana, a ipak mi je Supabet dozvolio da se kockam do oktobra. To znači da su i operater i regulator bili svesni moje situacije i nijedno nije preduzelo hitne korake da me zaštiti. Operateri ne shvataju ova pitanja ozbiljno i prave nered od onoga što bi trebalo da bude jednostavna situacija: kada igrač kaže da želi da prestane, račun treba zatvoriti i prihvatanje daljih sredstava treba odmah da prestane.
Ovaj slučaj se ne odnosi na gubitak od kockanja. Radi se o kompaniji koja je svesno prihvatila sredstva nakon što je saglasnost povučena, ignorišući više jasnih indikatora štete i namerno podstičući nastavak kockanja tokom perioda ranjivosti. Takođe se radi o regulatoru koji, uprkos tome što je obavešten, nije blagovremeno i efikasno intervenisao.
Moje pitanje za Casino.Guru i celu industriju je sledeće: u kom trenutku počinje obaveza delovanja? Zar se ne aktivira u trenutku kada igrač zatraži isključenje i saopšti štetu? Zar se ne pojačava kada je regulator obavešten? Ako ne, onda kada?
Tražim povraćaj depozita primljenih posle 8. marta 2025. godine i formalno priznanje pogrešnog postupanja. Ako Supabet odbije da direktno reši ovo pitanje, dalje ću eskalirati ovo pitanje, uključujući i pokretanje pravnog postupka ako je potrebno.
Ova situacija ilustruje sistemski problem. Operatori nastavljaju da profitiraju od štete dok regulatori odugovlače ili ćute. Igrači poput mene su finansijski uništeni, uprkos tome što činimo sve što je u našoj moći da to zaustavimo.
Subject: Supabet – Failure to Act After Withdrawal of Consent and Regulator Inaction
I have been struggling with gambling addiction since March 2025, and Supabet’s conduct during this time is a textbook example of how operators exploit vulnerable players instead of protecting them.
On March 8, 2025, I submitted a written request for my Supabet account to be closed and suspended for one year. That request was clear and unambiguous: I was experiencing harm and no longer consented to gamble. Despite that, Supabet kept my account open for more than six months, continued to incentivize me with bonuses and promotions, and accepted over $80,704.83 CAD in deposits, all after I had explicitly withdrawn my consent.
These were not discretionary entertainment deposits. They were made during a period when I was trying to stop, in a state of financial desperation, and should never have been accepted. Operators often try to shift the blame onto players by pointing to continued gambling behaviour, but that argument ignores the reality of addiction. My continued deposits were not evidence of consent. They were evidence of the very harm responsible gambling policies are meant to address.
In September 2025, I even submitted a formal self-exclusion through the Anjouan regulator, and yet Supabet still allowed me to gamble into October. That means both the operator and the regulator were aware of my situation, and neither took immediate steps to protect me. Operators do not take these issues seriously, and they make a mess of what should be a simple situation: when a player says they want to stop, the account should be closed and the acceptance of further funds should end immediately.
This case is not about a gambling loss. It is about a company knowingly accepting funds after consent was withdrawn, ignoring multiple clear indicators of harm, and deliberately encouraging continued gambling during a period of vulnerability. It is also about a regulator that, despite being notified, failed to intervene in a timely and effective way.
My question to Casino.Guru and to the industry as a whole is this: at what point does the duty to act begin? Is it not triggered the moment a player requests exclusion and communicates harm? Is it not reinforced when the regulator is informed? If not then, when?
I am seeking the repayment of deposits accepted after March 8, 2025, and a formal acknowledgment of wrongdoing. If Supabet refuses to resolve this directly, I will escalate this matter further, including pursuing legal action if necessary.
This situation illustrates a systemic problem. Operators continue to profit from harm while regulators delay or remain silent. Players like me are left financially devastated, despite doing everything in our power to stop.
Automatski prevedeno: