Responsible gambling breached

Dear Thrill Casino,

We have reviewed all the info, provided by both sides involved and must admit that player raised some valid questions and concerns.

The email sent by your team, please check screenshot clearly states that player's account was marked as Self excluded, till February 19th 2026.Therefore, all that one could have understood was that account was actually self excluded. Even in your reopening request's answer your team mentioned self exlusion ( once again ). AskGamblers Casino Complaint Team strongly believes that such and similar ''mistakes'' in communication simply can not happen, especially once RG is involved.

Please note that, in case you fail to respond within the given timeframe, we will consider your case unresolved and it will be closed accordingly.

Thanks in advance for your cooperation.

Thank you for the casino’s response. I respectfully disagree with several key points, which I believe require clarification.

The casino states that I did not declare loss of control or gambling harm.
However, my request for a three-month break followed significant financial losses, and the purpose of requesting a long-term restriction was precisely to stop gambling activity for a meaningful period.

In responsible gambling practice, requesting a multi-month restriction goes beyond a short emotional pause and objectively indicates a need for protection. A three-month restriction is materially different from a 24-hour cool-down.

Very important to say:
The casino confirms that the system-generated email used the term “self-exclusion”, which they now describe as “automatic.”

From a player’s perspective, I am entitled to rely on the operator’s written confirmation, not on internal classifications or system logic that are invisible to the customer.
At no point was I informed that:
- the restriction was reversible, or
- that early reopening was permitted.

If a protection measure is communicated as “self-exclusion,” the burden lies with the operator to ensure that this terminology is accurate and not misleading.

The casino’s argument relies heavily on post-event reclassification of the restriction as a “temporary break.”

However:
- The duration selected (three months) falls within the same 1–180 day range described in the Responsible Gambling policy.
- No clear distinction or warning was provided to me explaining different legal consequences between a “temporary break” and “self-exclusion.”
- The reopening occurred only after losses had already materialized.

This creates a reasonable concern that the classification was adjusted after the outcome, rather than being clearly defined at the time of activation.

Gambling harm does not require specific wording as the casino suggests that only eplicit phrases such as “I have gambling harm” trigger protection obligations.

I respectfully disagree. Responsible gambling frameworks exist precisely because players in distress may not use legal or clinical language.
The combination of:
- substantial prior losses,
- a request for a long-term restriction,
- and subsequent reliance on the protection provided,

should reasonably be treated as a signal of vulnerability, regardless of exact phrasing.



The casino’s references to prior bonus discussions are not relevant to the issue under review.

The complaint concerns:
- the activation of a three-month restriction,
- the reopening of the account before that period expired,
- and losses incurred after reopening.

Past bonus negotiations do not negate the existence or purpose of a confirmed gambling restriction.

The core issue is not whether the casino followed internal terminology, but whether:
- a long-term protective restriction was confirmed,
- the player relied on that protection,
- and the protection was lifted prematurely, enabling further losses.

I respectfully request AskGamblers to assess this case based on player protection principles, transparency of communication, and reasonable reliance, rather than solely on internal classification labels.

At Thrill.com, we take Responsible Gaming seriously and wish to clarify the facts of this case in line with the Anjouan Responsible Gaming Guidelines under which we are licensed.

The Anjouan framework encourages operators to provide multiple self-protection tools, including temporary breaks (cool-off periods) and account closure (self-exclusion). These mechanisms are distinct, carry different consequences, and are applied strictly in response to the player’s explicit request and declared circumstances.

It is important to clarify that Anjouan regulations do not require temporary breaks to be irreversible, nor do they prohibit account reopening upon a player’s request, provided that no gambling-related harm or risk has been declared.

The player initially contacted our dedicated team following a bonus-related enquiry. After the bonus request was declined, the player asked to take a break and specifically enquired whether “he could open a new account if the existing account was closed”. Our agent explained the available options, including a short 24-hour cool-down period and longer temporary restrictions. The player then requested a three-month temporary break, which was applied accordingly as a temporary restriction, not as self-exclusion. At no point during this interaction did the player state that he was experiencing loss of control or gambling harm, or request self-exclusion or permanent account closure.

Attached screenshot “1. Temporary-Break.png” is evidence of this conversation.

Subsequently, the player contacted our support services requesting the reopening of the account. Due to system automation, an initial response used the term “self-exclusion.” This is a generic automated classification and does not reflect the restriction actually applied. The player immediately responded to the message, stating that he had never requested self-exclusion but only a temporary break. At this point, his re-opening query was moved to the corresponding department. Once the request was reviewed, it was confirmed that no gambling-related risk or harm had been declared during the closure process, and the account was therefore reopened at the player’s explicit request.

Attached screenshot “2. Custom­er-­Sup­por­t-I­nte­rac­tio­n.png” is evidence of this conversation.

Thrill.com remains committed to Responsible Gaming and has the necessary safeguards, resources, and support mechanisms in place to help ensure that gaming remains safe, responsible and enjoyable.

The evidence suggests that the player’s requests for account closure were motivated by a desire for additional financial incentives rather than concerns regarding gambling harm. As shown in '3. Bonus-Threats.png', the player repeatedly used the threat of account closure as a negotiation tactic to solicit bonuses. Furthermore, the player’s own communications in '4. Angle-Message.png' demonstrate a clear understanding of the platform's procedures and an intentionality behind their requests that is inconsistent with a genuine need for Responsible Gaming intervention

Is there any communication happening, as operator initiated reopen and no replies here