Roobet Casino - Pristup nalogu igrača je neograničen propisima kazina.

To the Casino Guru Dispute Resolution Team,

I am submitting a formal complaint against Roobet due to their ongoing failure to enforce responsible gaming practices, self-exclusion protocols, and jurisdictional compliance. Despite being a U.S. resident, I was repeatedly allowed to access and gamble on Roobet’s platform. Roobet did not perform the necessary KYC checks to prevent players from restricted jurisdictions from playing, instead allowing individuals like myself to bypass these requirements with ease. This oversight demonstrates a blatant disregard for regulatory standards and player welfare, leaving me, a self-identified problem gambler, vulnerable and exploited.

As a U.S. player, I should have been restricted from accessing Roobet entirely, but their lack of adequate KYC protocols enabled my continued use of the platform. Even when using a VPN, it is Roobet’s responsibility to implement robust safeguards that prevent restricted players from joining, which reputable platforms typically enforce with clear measures. However, Roobet chose to turn a knowing blind eye to my access, disregarding both jurisdictional boundaries and self-exclusion protocols that should have protected me.

I have made multiple self-exclusion requests with Roobet due to my gambling addiction, expecting them to act in good faith. Instead, Roobet allowed me to repeatedly open new accounts without any verification process, despite their knowledge of my prior exclusions and high-risk status. This failure to enforce both self-exclusion and jurisdictional restrictions is a severe breach of responsible gaming and consumer protection standards, causing me significant financial, psychological, and emotional harm.

The fact that Roobet continues to allow U.S.-based players to access their platform despite legal restrictions and regulatory guidelines shows a pattern of negligence. By knowingly permitting restricted players to continue gambling, Roobet is in violation of industry standards and is willfully exposing vulnerable individuals to harm. This behavior suggests a disregard for the safeguards essential to player welfare, and I believe their actions should be scrutinized by regulatory bodies.

Given the substantial harm I have endured as a result of Roobet’s neglect, I am requesting Casino Guru’s assistance in urging Roobet to issue a full refund of all deposits made under my accounts. This resolution is necessary to address the severe impact of their irresponsible practices on my well-being.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I trust that Casino Guru will take into account the gravity of Roobet’s disregard for regulatory compliance and responsible gaming, holding them accountable for the substantial harm inflicted on players like myself. Please let me know if any further documentation or evidence is required.

Dear Charamsd,

Thank you very much for submitting your complaint. I’m very sorry to hear about your negative experience. First, I’d like to explain to you what the difference is between closing the account and self-exclusion: 

Closing an account is simple and has almost no impact - the player can reopen the account anytime, and the casino has no obligation to the player.  

On the other hand, self-exclusion does. If a player successfully makes a self-exclusion the casino agrees not to open this account or if yes only under particular circumstances (after the cooling off period and this cannot be done for players who are addicted/with gambling problems). 

Would you be so kind as to forward me the account closure requests that you sent to the casino? My email address is dominika.l@casino.guru.

Have you completed KYC verification for all the accounts you created in the casino?

Are you currently able to access any of these accounts?

Thank you very much in advance. 

Best regards, 

Dominika

Dear Dominika,

Thank you for your assistance with this matter and for clarifying the distinction between closing an account and self-exclusion. I can confirm that I self-excluded on every previous account I opened with Roobet. Each time I requested self-exclusion, I made it clear to Roobet Support that I struggled with gambling addiction and should not be permitted to play on their platform. I requested IP bans and additional measures to ensure that I would be permanently barred from accessing their casino.

I have just sent you copies of the self-exclusion requests that I submitted to Roobet Support, as well as supplemental evidence that I provided over the weekend to complaints@casino.guru. I forwarded these emails to you directly as well, to ensure I was being proactive. I apologize if this was not the correct channel, but I wanted to ensure that the necessary proof was readily available. The documentation I provided clearly shows that I requested a self-exclusion ban on each previous account and identified myself as a gambling addict, stressing that I should not be permitted to play on Roobet under any circumstances.

As you know, KYC checks are meant to protect users and to ensure that online gambling platforms comply with regulations, especially when restricting access for self-identified problem gamblers and players from prohibited jurisdictions. Despite Roobet’s stated policy against VPN use and promises to uphold responsible gaming standards, they failed to implement adequate measures to verify player identities or locations proactively. By allowing self-excluded users like me to continue to access the platform repeatedly, with no intervention, even as many other users have raised similar concerns—they have effectively turned a blind eye to essential safeguards. A company genuinely committed to compliance and player protection would employ technology to detect VPN usage and verify player identity more rigorously than simply relying on terms and conditions.

Roobet’s approach relies too heavily on terms and conditions without actively enforcing them, leaving them, at the very least, partially accountable, particularly in light of their lack of protection for users with gambling problems. Those familiar with gambling addiction know that addicts may go to great lengths to circumvent restrictions, and it seems unreasonable to expect a gambling addict to voluntarily comply with KYC verification. This is why I believe Roobet should be mandated to uphold these protocols, as many other casinos do, including their competitor Stake.com, which enforces stricter compliance measures to identify problem gamblers and verify player locations. I commend Stake for taking the steps necessary to protect their players and respect their commitment to enforcing their terms and conditions.

In this situation, I believe Roobet should share accountability for the significant impact this lack of proactive enforcement has had on me and, likely, on other similarly vulnerable players. Their repeated failure to enforce self-exclusion and jurisdictional restrictions, despite my clear requests and disclosures, raises concerns about systemic negligence. I am hopeful that this evidence will support a resolution in this complaint.

Thank you again for your attention and help in pursuing a fair outcome in this matter.

Sincerely,

Charamsd

Also to be clear, I am only seeking to be indemnified for the deposits on my most recent account- not on all deposits of all time. I feel this is fair and appropriate. I have had at least 5 to 6 other accounts with many deposits that I am not requesting any refund on.

Thank you,

Charamsd

I would also like to make evidence public here.

Please see referenced proof of existing self-exclusions on one of my previous accounts (username: w*********). This account was created and later closed through a voluntary request for self-exclusion on September 14th of this year. In this communication, I clearly identified myself as a problem gambler and informed Roobet that I should not be able to gamble on their site. Despite this, I was still able to create a new account (username: a******) with a different email address on October 11th and continue gambling. All attached evidence clearly illustrates this issue. I have also sent this evidence from the email address: a***********@gmail.com - which is the account I created to open the Roobet account: w*********) as evidence that the account does indeed belong to me, a self-identified problem gambler, who was recently able to create a new account with Roobet under the username: a******

Dear Dominika,

I have just sent you another email to: dominika.l@casino.guru -please see the attached screenshots which will inform you that I consistently accessed accounts on Roobet.com and initiated sessions on Roobet.com consistently from the same IP address.

Even with self-exclusions in place on previous accounts using the same IP address, I was still able to access and initiate sessions on my most recent account: a******, This was even after self-excluding with the same IP address on the Roobet account: winningful.

I hope this evidence helps to strengthen my case. I truly appreciate your help and Casino Guru for looking out for the players.

Sincerely,

Charamsd

Dear Dominika,

Please also note the timestamps of the emails in the screenshots I shared. You’ll see that in my last session on the winningful account on Roobet, I self-excluded shortly after logging in from the provided IP address. However, I was still able to access Roobet through other accounts from the same IP address, despite the self-exclusions in place.

This raises serious concerns. Roobet appears to have been fully aware of my activity and gambling history yet allowed me to continue depositing and gambling. This lack of any safeguards has left me feeling taken advantage of, and Roobet’s support team has repeatedly offered little acknowledgment of this issue, taking no accountability on behalf of problem gamblers even with countless other players and complaints bringing it to their attention and describing the same issue.

I am very concerned about my future and present in light of Roobet’s apparent negligence, as this situation has caused me significant financial, emotional, and psychological distress. I am hoping that Roobet changes their tune and will act promptly in a gesture of goodwill to address this matter.

Sincerely,

Charamsd

Dear Dominika,

I have been researching previous complaints by players that have complained about similar circumstances, and I would also like to make a few things clear about my particular situation.

First of all, it is important to mention that I explicitly informed Roobet that "I am a gambling addict" this is very clear in my screenshot of the subject line in the email response I received from support notifying they have self-excluded me. I also understand that when we are talking about refunds regarding self-exclusion cases like this one, the only sum that wo

uld be considered refundable are the deposits made during the self-exclusion process. I am only requesting to be refunded my deposits, or at the least just indemnified on my total losses for my most recent account: "a******" which was clearly operated during my existing self-exclusion period to address my gambling addiction.

I stated clearly, and immediately, that I wished to self-exclude myself due to gambling addiction.

I apologize for the many replies, but I want to make sure I am covering every angle and that I am supporting my case as much as possible.

I understand and have seen that positive resolutions have been reached on complaints like mine with the help of Casino Guru's team and Roobet's cooperation. I hope a positive outcome can be reached here. I look forward to your response 🙂

Sincerely,

Charamsd

Dominika,

To keep you in the loop I have received this reply from Roobet today:

"We have done a thorough investigation of your accounts and claims and identified that you have provided false name and address information upon registration. Kindly note that it's against our terms of service to at any time provide false information. Since you have deliberately provided false information to bypass our internal procedures, we have have not identified any fault on our side which would warrant a refund in this instance."

Roobet is trying to take the position that based on their terms & conditions 'they have not identified any fault on their side' and are in no way at fault for the intense damage that has been done to my life, and countless other problem gamblers as a result of their lackadaisical and insufficient efforts to protect player wellbeing and proactively enforce their terms & conditions. While this is a very convenient position for them to take, it is my position that Roobet is still (at the very least) partially at fault due to its inadequate enforcement of self-exclusion measures, which fails to fulfill a basic standard of responsible gaming. While the terms and conditions place responsibility on the user, Roobet offers a self-exclusion option that implies a commitment to protect vulnerable users. By allowing an excluded individual to repeatedly create new accounts without sufficient verification, Roobet demonstrates a lack of effective safeguards against problematic gambling behaviors, enabling self-identified problem gamblers to re-enter their platform easily. This lack of due diligence reflects negligence in providing a safe gaming environment, as Roobet effectively facilitated the continuation of gambling behavior it was explicitly asked to prevent. Therefore, Roobet bears at the least partial responsibility for the harm caused by its deficient self-exclusion enforcement, regardless of its disclaimers in the terms and conditions. I understand that as a gambling addict I need to take measures in my own life to address the issue, and I have- but I also count on internet gaming providers, like Roobet, to act responsibly and in good faith. This is a two-way street.

Sincerely,

Charamsd

Dear Dominika,

A positive resolution to this matter is incredibly important to my well-being, and I hope you can appreciate the depth of my research, the thoroughness of the information I’ve provided, and my commitment to achieving the right outcome. My intent is not only to seek financial and protective resolution for myself but also to highlight an issue that has impacted other Roobet players who struggle with problem gambling. I believe that addressing these concerns can lead to a stronger, more responsible approach for the platform, ultimately benefiting everyone involved.

Therefore, I wanted to further address my concerns about Roobet’s handling of my accounts, particularly regarding compliance with Curaçao’s gaming regulations. I believe that Roobet’s processes fall short of the standards set under Curaçao law, particularly those outlined in the National Ordinance on the Identification and Verification of Clients (NOIS) and the National Ordinance for the Prevention and Combating of Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing (NORUT). These standards emphasize responsible gambling, AML procedures, and jurisdictional restrictions, which collectively support player protection. Below, I’ve outlined the specific concerns and why I feel that Roobet should consider indemnification as a fair resolution for the losses incurred by me.

1. Player Protection and Responsible Gambling Obligations

Curaçao law mandates licensed operators to enforce robust Customer Due Diligence (CDD) and Know Your Customer (KYC) practices. This is particularly crucial when there are indications of problem gambling or self-exclusion requests. Despite my self-exclusions, Roobet allowed me to continue depositing and gambling large sums of currency, which points to a gap in the player protection measures that Curaçao’s laws require.

Licensed operators are required to actively monitor accounts and implement responsible gambling measures. By accepting continued deposits after a clear self-exclusion request, Roobet neglected essential safeguards meant to prevent harm to vulnerable players.

2. Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Monitoring Responsibilities

Under NOIS and NORUT, Curaçao law mandates that licensed operators implement thorough AML and risk management programs. Part of this obligation includes monitoring account activity, which would naturally encompass behavior that suggests circumvention of self-exclusion or problem gambling.

Allowing continued deposits without intervention, or prompting of more in-depth KYC procedures suggests that Roobet may not be fully adhering to these requirements, creating a significant compliance gap. Effective monitoring under Curaçao regulations should have flagged me and my various accounts activity as unusual, triggering preventative measures to protect me from further gameplay and financial loss.

3. Jurisdictional Enforcement and Licensing Compliance

Curaçao law also requires that licensed operators enforce jurisdictional restrictions, ensuring players are not able to gamble from restricted locations. By accepting deposits from my location, Roobet may have violated Curaçao’s requirement to prevent gambling access where prohibited.

Roobet’s Terms of Service indicate that the casino disclaims liability under certain circumstances, (VPNs) but this does not override their legal obligations under Curaçao law to monitor for compliance and enforce jurisdictional boundaries. If KYC and other protections were adequately enforced, Roobet would have taken steps to prevent unauthorized access from restricted locations, as required by Curaçao’s licensing standards.

4. Resolution and Indemnification for Compliance Failures

Given these issues, I believe it is both fair and within Curaçao’s regulatory framework for Roobet to indemnify my account losses due to these compliance shortcomings. Curaçao’s gaming standards are structured to ensure licensed operators maintain accountability, particularly when there are failures in CDD, AML, or responsible gambling measures.

A complete indemnification would reflect Roobet’s commitment to meeting Curaçao’s legal standards, showing that they take responsibility for compliance and player protection seriously. It would also serve as a fair resolution for the distress and financial impact this situation has caused.

In light of these considerations, I urge Roobet and Casino Guru to further review my case with respect to Curaçao’s regulatory obligations and consider that the best course of action is indemnifying my losses due to the gaps in compliance. Resolving this situation fairly would demonstrate Roobet’s commitment to Curaçao’s and the gaming industry's player protection standards and help to ensure stronger safeguards in the future.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,

Charamsd

Dear Charamsd, please provide simple answers to the following questions.

Have you completed KYC verification for all your casino accounts?

Can you currently access any of these accounts?

Did you create the casino accounts using false information?

1. I have not because Roobet doesn’t require formal KYC to open an account.
2. No, I closed them but was easily able to open new accounts every time which you wouldn’t be able to do at any other casino that takes self exclusions and KYC seriously. I could open a new account and deposit more right now with Roobet if I wanted.
3. Yes, I did, because I am a gambling addict and they allow you to easily open an account with any name you want without checking it against any form of Identification, essentially rendering any sort of self-exclusion policy useless...hence my complaint.

My point is, is that Roobet offers a self-exclusion policy which is meant to protect problem gamblers from continuing to use Roobet, however they do not take the necessary precautions or verification procedures to enforce it, leading to continued suffering for many individuals. Any self-exclusion that can be easily circumvented by the creation of new accounts is not a true self-exclusion. If they followed proper and responsible KYC procedures, they would require identification at the onset of account creation, but they never do, allowing virtually anybody to gamble on their site. This is dangerous, as it opens the door for gambling addicts, even minors, etc. to easily access their platform and place bets. I would be surprised if Casino Guru, who supposedly is an advocate on behalf of the players, sees no issue with Roobet's self-exclusion and KYC standards/procedures.

Dear Charamsd,

thank you for sharing your concerns. I understand that you're frustrated with the self-exclusion policies and KYC procedures at Roobet. When players register with inaccurate details, it complicates a casino's ability to provide support. Additionally, a casino usually cannot block specific IP addresses, and if you were using a VPN, it might have affected other users as well. If you had registered with your real name and address, they could have verified your identity and assisted you more effectively.

It's important to note that using VPNs and providing fake registration details is ultimately the player's responsibility. We encourage all players to use accurate information to ensure a safer and more responsible gaming experience.

Due to the aforementioned reasons, this complaint will now be rejected. Thank you for your understanding, I am sorry we could not be of more help on this occasion. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you run into any issues with this or any other casino in the future.