ThePOGG.com – your source for reliable information about online gambling.


  • Over 2k complaints managed and $2 million returned to players.
  • The largest collection of detailed casino reviews available online.
  • Bonus value reports to tell you how bonuses really compare.
  • Detailed game guides to help you learn to play.

I certify that I am over 18 years of age and I have read and agreed to the:

We respect your privacy and won't share your email address.
Aweber logo
[X] Close this form and return to site
Close geo
Turn geolocation on
Locale settings

Currently viewing:

English in United States

Lucky Casino - False reopening refund

Ruling

Found for the Operator - The claim that the operator failed to properly identify the player is redundant as the player admits it was them that asked to re-open the account.

Read our Lucky Casino Review.

Player's Complaint

I wanted to make new case of my issue because I got more evidence.

I contacted this casino via email regarding addiction question. The email I contacted them wasn't connected to my gaming account and they didnt identify me in any way. They decided to reopen my account without even knowing does this person has gaming account here. Days later I asked when my account is reopened. They answered that they dont find gaming account with this email and asked me to identify.

Based on this all my earlier emails sent shouldnt be valid. Also 7 days cooling off period should have started after they did the identification. If they say they didnt find gaming account with this email I used in the beginning, how could they already decided that my account can be reopened?

Read the casino review

7 Responses

User icon
thepogg
January 28, 2024

Hi Magnat,

We've already reviewed your claim in detail and while we appreciate you were dissatisfied with the outcome, this new information would not change it.

While the operator should have confirmed your identity during this process, this is an identity theft prevention protocol, not a responsible gambling issue.

While the operator could have got in trouble had they given someone access to your account that was not you, they didn't. And any fallout for the operator would have had to be managed via the police/regulator due to the criminal actions of a third party and the policy failures of the operator.

If it had been someone else contacting, that would make a difference in terms of the actual request. But, and by your own admission, it wasn't. So the fundamental reality here is that you asked to reopen your account, the operator engaged the correct protocols and seven days later your account was reopened. There's no grounds for us to seek a refund.

Given the above, our ruling on this matter stands.

ThePOGG

User icon
Magnat
January 28, 2024

Removing a self-exclusion can only be implemented following the account holders request, whereby the player must:

Provide an explanation why the self-exclusion was requested.

Provide evidence that they are now able to manage their gambling safely and sustainably.

Following the account holders request; If the request comes from a person that they even dont connect to any gaming account, there is none proof it came from account holder. Also you still havent told me what is the evidence that mga says here?

User icon
Magnat
January 28, 2024

If the exclusion has happened due gambling addiction, that is mental health illness. The only evidence would be okay is doctors statement that this person has cured from that. If someone come to casino ask protection because she knows she cant control behaviour, casino should make everything to prevent and not to lure someone back to play.

My gambling addiction is due my PTSD, both has been diagnosed by a doctor. All of this has caused me a lot more anxiety and stress.

User icon
Magnat
January 28, 2024

It is interesting that casino is allowed to reopen an account for a person that just have said she is addicted. But if you say you are addicted and casino dont close your account, you can get refunded? What is the difference between these? I just dont understand, no matter how I try to figure this out.

User icon
Magnat
January 28, 2024

"If you would know my account is closed here due addiction", if this dont indicate to a casino that this is an addict person then I dont know what is.

The question I want to ask is why it is allowed for a casinos to reopen an account for a person that just said an addiction? But then again they need to close account in a reasonable time if someone says is addicted?

User icon
Magnat
January 29, 2024

So basically you can:

Get your account reopened when you have asked protection due your gambling account.

Get your account reopened without any identification, with email that isnt your gaming email.

Get your account reopened when you contact saying that your account is closed due gambling addiction and no intention to even reopen an account in a first place. ( After that email I sent from an email that I dont have an account with, casino thinks this is a good idea to get this person to use our services, especially when we know she is addicted.)

What should have happened here is that they would have said that if you have an addiction, you cant use our services. That is what every casino answered when i sent this email. Also they could have answered that you dont even have an account with this email.

What I see here is huge fails regarding responsibility and I dont know how you dont see it. If casinos is required to close account if someone says she has an addiction, then it shouldnt be just fine to reopen an account for a person that just have said account here is closed due addiction. And you just say this is okay behaviour under MGA and totally allowed?

User icon
thepogg
January 29, 2024

Hi Magnat,

YOU requested that your account be reopened. Whether the operator appropriately identified you or not would not result in a refund. Because it WAS you that asked to reopen your account. It may result in regulatory sanction due to KYC failures (for clarity we're not stating that it would or indeed that anything incorrect even occurred), but that would not result in you receiving a refund in this situation.

You are free to hold the view that the MGA's regulations in this respect are not sufficient to protect vulnerable players - we would agree that they could be improved - but our role is to enforce the regulations that ARE in place. In this case the operator has abided by the regulations they are subject to.

We're sorry you're unhappy, but there's nothing further we can do to assist you with this matter. No further posts will be approved on this thread.

ThePOGG

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Agreement

Magnat consented for ThePOGG to act on their behalf and share the personal information that they provide to ThePOGG with the following agencies for the purposes of resolving their complaint:

  • Lucky Casino
  • Malta Gaming Authority
  • Glitnor Services Limited

January 26, 2024

United States country flag