Complaint #5
Bitz Casino
Responsible Gaming Failure At Bitz After Gambling Addiction Disclosure
6 months ago
I. INTRODUCTION
This complaint concerns Bitz Casino’s failure to enforce its own Self-Exclusion Policy and responsible gambling obligations after clear notice of gambling addiction, its misrepresentations regarding its ability to manually restrict accounts, and its continued acceptance of deposits and inducement to gamble until substantial losses occurred.
Bitz publicly represented that players who believe they are spending too much time or money gambling may request self-exclusion by contacting support. When those protections were invoked clearly, repeatedly, and before any deposits were made, Bitz refused to act.
II. KEY FACTS AND TIMELINE
1. Initial notice before deposits
I opened an account at Bitz on December 7, 2025. Before making any deposits, I reviewed Bitz’s Self-Exclusion Policy and attempted to access responsible gambling tools inside my account. The Responsible Gambling link was nonfunctional and led to a dead page.
Because no self-service safeguards were available, I immediately contacted support requesting permanent account closure and self-exclusion. I disclosed in writing that I am a problem gambler with an addiction and cannot play at casinos without functioning limits or self-exclusion tools.
2. Repeated requests and refusal
Over the following days, I requested self-exclusion, account closure, deposit blocks, or limits more than fifteen times via email, live chat, and Telegram. Every request was denied.
Bitz repeatedly stated that self-exclusion was only possible through the broken Responsible Gambling portal, that the portal was unavailable due to technical issues, and that manual self-exclusion, account closure, deposit blocks, or limits were not possible for legal or technical reasons. These representations were made repeatedly and in writing.
3. Continued deposits and inducement
Despite clear notice of gambling addiction and repeated requests to stop play, Bitz continued accepting deposits, continued marketing communications, and assigned a personal manager who encouraged continued gambling.
After notice, Bitz accepted $13,800 in deposits. No safeguards were applied.
4. Sudden reversal after escalation
After I formally escalated the matter and sent a demand letter advising that I would file complaints with Ask Gamblers and Bitcointalk, Bitz abruptly blocked my account on December 16, 2025.
This directly contradicted more than a week of written statements that manual action was impossible and confirms that Bitz had the ability to restrict or close my account but chose not to do so until after the losses occurred.
5. Partial settlement offer
Following the account restriction, a senior manager named Steven offered a partial refund of $5,000. I rejected the offer because it would allow Bitz to retain most funds accepted after responsible gambling protections were invoked and denied. Bitz has since ceased meaningful engagement.
6. Post-complaint concealment
As of December 19, 2025, Bitz removed its Self-Exclusion Policy from its website and removed the Responsible Gambling portal link from the player profile after these issues were raised publicly. I have preserved screenshots showing the prior existence of both and their removal.
III. LICENSING CONCERNS
Bitz claims to operate under an Anjouan Gaming license. Bitz does not display an Anjouan licensing seal on its website. The Anjouan Gaming License Register lists the license for Win Sector N.V. as expired as of November 21, 2025. This is relevant because Anjouan-licensed operators typically rely on the licensing framework to implement and validate self-exclusion mechanisms.
IV. RESPONSIBLE GAMBLING FAILURE
This case is not about losing money gambling. It concerns a casino that advertised responsible gambling protections, received clear notice of gambling addiction before any deposits, refused to implement self-exclusion or limits, continued accepting deposits and encouraging gambling, acted only after escalation, then attempted to retain most funds through a partial refund.
Responsible gambling tools that function only after harm occurs are not protections.
V. REQUESTED RESOLUTION
I request a refund of $13,800, representing all deposits accepted after Bitz received clear notice of gambling addiction and repeated requests for self-exclusion and account closure.
VI. EVIDENCE
I can provide written communications with Bitz support, screenshots of the broken Responsible Gambling portal, screenshots of the Self-Exclusion Policy before removal, screenshots showing removal on December 19, deposit records, Telegram communications including the settlement offer, and the formal demand letter.
This complaint concerns Bitz Casino’s failure to enforce its own Self-Exclusion Policy and responsible gambling obligations after clear notice of gambling addiction, its misrepresentations regarding its ability to manually restrict accounts, and its continued acceptance of deposits and inducement to gamble until substantial losses occurred.
Bitz publicly represented that players who believe they are spending too much time or money gambling may request self-exclusion by contacting support. When those protections were invoked clearly, repeatedly, and before any deposits were made, Bitz refused to act.
II. KEY FACTS AND TIMELINE
1. Initial notice before deposits
I opened an account at Bitz on December 7, 2025. Before making any deposits, I reviewed Bitz’s Self-Exclusion Policy and attempted to access responsible gambling tools inside my account. The Responsible Gambling link was nonfunctional and led to a dead page.
Because no self-service safeguards were available, I immediately contacted support requesting permanent account closure and self-exclusion. I disclosed in writing that I am a problem gambler with an addiction and cannot play at casinos without functioning limits or self-exclusion tools.
2. Repeated requests and refusal
Over the following days, I requested self-exclusion, account closure, deposit blocks, or limits more than fifteen times via email, live chat, and Telegram. Every request was denied.
Bitz repeatedly stated that self-exclusion was only possible through the broken Responsible Gambling portal, that the portal was unavailable due to technical issues, and that manual self-exclusion, account closure, deposit blocks, or limits were not possible for legal or technical reasons. These representations were made repeatedly and in writing.
3. Continued deposits and inducement
Despite clear notice of gambling addiction and repeated requests to stop play, Bitz continued accepting deposits, continued marketing communications, and assigned a personal manager who encouraged continued gambling.
After notice, Bitz accepted $13,800 in deposits. No safeguards were applied.
4. Sudden reversal after escalation
After I formally escalated the matter and sent a demand letter advising that I would file complaints with Ask Gamblers and Bitcointalk, Bitz abruptly blocked my account on December 16, 2025.
This directly contradicted more than a week of written statements that manual action was impossible and confirms that Bitz had the ability to restrict or close my account but chose not to do so until after the losses occurred.
5. Partial settlement offer
Following the account restriction, a senior manager named Steven offered a partial refund of $5,000. I rejected the offer because it would allow Bitz to retain most funds accepted after responsible gambling protections were invoked and denied. Bitz has since ceased meaningful engagement.
6. Post-complaint concealment
As of December 19, 2025, Bitz removed its Self-Exclusion Policy from its website and removed the Responsible Gambling portal link from the player profile after these issues were raised publicly. I have preserved screenshots showing the prior existence of both and their removal.
III. LICENSING CONCERNS
Bitz claims to operate under an Anjouan Gaming license. Bitz does not display an Anjouan licensing seal on its website. The Anjouan Gaming License Register lists the license for Win Sector N.V. as expired as of November 21, 2025. This is relevant because Anjouan-licensed operators typically rely on the licensing framework to implement and validate self-exclusion mechanisms.
IV. RESPONSIBLE GAMBLING FAILURE
This case is not about losing money gambling. It concerns a casino that advertised responsible gambling protections, received clear notice of gambling addiction before any deposits, refused to implement self-exclusion or limits, continued accepting deposits and encouraging gambling, acted only after escalation, then attempted to retain most funds through a partial refund.
Responsible gambling tools that function only after harm occurs are not protections.
V. REQUESTED RESOLUTION
I request a refund of $13,800, representing all deposits accepted after Bitz received clear notice of gambling addiction and repeated requests for self-exclusion and account closure.
VI. EVIDENCE
I can provide written communications with Bitz support, screenshots of the broken Responsible Gambling portal, screenshots of the Self-Exclusion Policy before removal, screenshots showing removal on December 19, deposit records, Telegram communications including the settlement offer, and the formal demand letter.
Screenshot
