Bitstarz - Self exclusion

Hi stohara - welcome back.

Under the Curacao licensing system self-exclusion only apply to the property that they are requested at. Self-exclusions at other Direx NV properties would not apply at Bitstarz.

I will again direct you to our free Responsible Gambling app BetBlocker useful. It allows users to restrict their internet capable devices from accessing over 12k gambling operator websites for between 24 hours and 5 years.

Sorry we could not be of more help.

ThePOGG

I requested self exclusion permanently from bitstarz on Oct 30 2020 as I’m a problem compulsive gambler

In a moment of weakness I asked for the account to be reopened

The account was automatically reopened despite the previous permanent self exclusion from bitstarz

I then lost a lot and seek a refund of net deposits as the account should not have been opened after previously requested permanent self exclusion

I have sent a screen shot of the previous self exclusion confirmation from bitstarz to [email protected] pogg

So I did request self exclusion at the relevant bitstarz casino and this was ignored

Hello has there been any response from bitstarz in relation to my complaint?

Hi stohara,

I've reviewed this issue with the operator. Sadly we will be unable to uphold your claim.

On the 30th of October you did indeed request a permanent self-exclusion at Bitstarz Casino. The next day you contacted the operator informing them that the self-exclusion request was made in error and asking to re-open your account. Bitstarz did NOT immediately re-open your account, instead acknowledging your request and informing you of a 7 day cooling-off period before you could re-open your account. Your account remained closed after that point until the 8th of January when you returned to again request the re-opening of your account. As no request had been made to reinstate your self-exclusion during the 7 day cooling-off period, you were then free to re-open your account.

Bitstarz are a Curacao licensed property. This licensing system has no clearly defined responsible gambling requirements. However, the actions of the operator in this case actually align with the requirements of the stronger MGA license. As such there is no grounds for us to seek a refund of your losses.

Sorry we could not be of further help.

ThePOGG

Thanks for your help here

Bitstarz terms and conditions confirm

‘ a self exclusion is a longer period of time,6 months to permanently, and when it is closed you can no longer log Into your account at all and it cannot be reopened before the time limit is expired. You would need to contact us after the set limit is expired for us to reopen the account once more’

This is from bitstarz website

I requested self exclusion and by their own criteria I should not have been allowed to reopen until the set limit was expired in my case for ever!

We will just have to agree to disagree about whether the operator followed their own rules here.

Apart from this obvious breech the pattern of behaviour in this case demonstrated by me could only have been performed by someone with a gambling addiction

Hi stohara,

Please provide the url of the page you took that quote from.

Thanks,

ThePOGG

Hi thanks for you continuing efforts here

Bitstarz.com have a FAQ section on the the main webpage

Their only defined position on self exclusion is in the section where they ask What is the difference between cooling off and self exclusion

I quoted from this answer which is in unequivocal terms

So Home the Help then frequently asked questions

Actually the criteria that was applied to my self exclusion was exactly what their cooling off criteria (7 days etc)

is according to their help questions and answer section

Hi stohara,

We've concluded our discussion with this operator. Sadly, while we view your claim as legitimate, the operator has chosen to disregard our ruling.

To expand on the problems evident is Bitstarz actions here firstly we would highlight the responsible gambling information on the Bitstarz site:

Firstly, it is clearly stated on the Bitstarz site that once a self-exclusion of 6 months or longer has been placed on an account, it cannot be lifted during the chosen period. So this self-exclusion should never have been lifted.

The defence that Bitstarz have relied upon to justify re-opening this account is that the player was emailed the following:

This email is sent to any player the self-excludes and clearly states that any self-exclusion can be cancelled within 24 hours of being requested, under the guise of it being a "mistake".

From a responsible gambling perspective, this is in our opinion not just poor practice, it is actively exploitative.

Players who request a self-exclusion are often in an emotionally evoked state at the time they are doing so. The request isn't made by 'mistake'. The player hasn't tripped and accidentally excluded. The panic they are feeling, having lost more than they can afford to lose, spurs them on to request the limitation in the first place. By providing a 'cooling off' period on the self-exclusion request, the clear and sole intention is to allow a player to calm down and let the desperation to recover money set in.

In our opinion, offering a cooling-off period to allow players to lift a requested self-exclusion actively encourages further irresposible gambling. This practice in itself would see Bitstarz included on our Blacklist if they weren't already.

Add to this the conflict in the clearly advertised information provided on site and there is simply no way to view this operator's actions as in any way reasonable.

Sorry we could not be of further help.

ThePOGG

Thank you for your efforts here. It is appreciated