Dear all,
Following a careful review and consideration of all the information, details and/or proof presented by the parties during the complaint process, the AskGamblers Complaint Team reached the conclusion that Pinco Casino management acted in accordance with their Terms and Conditions.
Dear @syyplay2,
Your account was originally not permanently self-excluded. You didn't ask for a permanent block due to gambling issues. Therefore, you could reopen it. Since it is self-excluded permanently at the moment, if any reopening happens, please contact our Team.
Based on the abovementioned information, the AskGamblers Complaint Team considers this case resolved, and it is now officially closed. While we understand this might not be the outcome expected by the complainant, we would like to remind you that, in case of a disagreement with our decision, further assistance on the matter could be requested from the relevant regulatory body and/or appointed ADR entity.
Before drawing conclusions, please make sure you are referring to the most up-to-date information.
Section 12.1 of the User Agreement states: “You may close your account at any time and request the withdrawal of any remaining funds, less any applicable fees. To close your account, you must first cancel any open bets, if applicable, and contact the Website’s customer support at [email protected].”
There is also Section 12.3: “If the reason for closing your account is related to concerns about a possible gambling addiction, you must contact responsiblegaming@pinco.win.”
These are two separate procedures. If your account is blocked under Section 12.1, meaning not due to a gambling addiction, then the length of time you specified is irrelevant.
If the reason had been stated as "gambling addiction" and the duration had been specified as permanent ("forever"), then yes, your account would never have been reopened.
Thank you for contacting us.
I completely disagree with the statements made by the Pinco Casino representative. I have carefully re-read the terms and conditions, specifically the "self-exclusion" section. The rules state that they do not have the right to lift the block before the requested period has expired—regardless of the reason, whether it was due to addiction or voluntary self-exclusion. I requested a 99-year term, yet they lifted it after just two years. This is a clear violation. I do not understand what they are trying to prove when I am presenting facts taken directly from their own site's regulations.
Pinco Casino Complaint Stats
Screenshot