Will not refund my money despite operating without license in Denmark and several requests to permanently delete my account

Dear AskGamblers Complaint Team,

I would like to provide additional comments regarding Casoo’s response and explain why I believe their position fails to address the core issues in this dispute.

Casoo argues that its services are not directed towards the Danish market, that Danish customers are accepted only on a reverse solicitation basis, and that responsibility rests with the customer to determine whether use of the platform is lawful.

However, this does not address the facts of my case.

I am a resident of Denmark. Casoo’s own Terms and Conditions, specifically Section 6.6, state that citizens and residents of Denmark are not permitted to register, access or use the platform.

Despite this restriction:

1. Denmark was available as a selectable country during registration.
2. I was able to create an account.
3. My account was accepted and verified.
4. My deposits were accepted.
5. I was able to access and use the platform.
6. I continued to receive services despite residing in a jurisdiction which Casoo’s own Terms and Conditions classify as restricted.

Casoo repeatedly refers to reverse solicitation. However, reverse solicitation does not explain why a customer residing in a prohibited jurisdiction was allowed to register, deposit and gamble without restriction.

I also dispute Casoo’s statement that it does not market to Danish consumers.

I became aware of Casoo through an advertisement displayed to me on Instagram. My initial contact with the platform was therefore not solely the result of my own independent search for gambling services.

Furthermore, the website, Terms and Conditions and customer-facing materials were available in Danish, and Denmark was available in their selection of countries during registration, their bonus programmes and descriptions of the same are all displayed in the Danish language. These circumstances created the clear impression that Danish consumers were permitted to use the platform.

I would also like to highlight that other operators who genuinely treat Denmark as a restricted jurisdiction actively enforce those restrictions. I have attached examples of operators who immediately block access from Denmark and prevent registration or gameplay.

Casoo did not do this.

The second and more significant issue concerns Responsible Gaming and account closure.

I repeatedly contacted Casoo requesting permanent account deletion, permanent account closure and account blocking.

On 13 February 2026, I requested account deletion.

On 7 April 2026, I again requested permanent account closure.

On 14 April 2026, I requested that my account be blocked.

These requests were made through [email protected] after I was directed to that contact channel by Casoo’s live chat support.

Casoo now states that each time I contacted [email protected] my account was closed immediately, but later reopened after a Responsible Gaming reactivation assessment.

This explanation raises more questions than it answers.

My requests were not requests for temporary account closure. They were requests for permanent account deletion, permanent account closure and account blocking.

The central question therefore remains unanswered:

Why did an account that I repeatedly requested to be permanently deleted, permanently closed and blocked continue to exist in a form that allowed it to be reactivated?

The fact remains that after my requests for permanent deletion and closure, I was later able to regain access to the account and continue depositing funds.

I followed the instructions provided by Casoo’s representatives and contacted [email protected].

I also believe there is an important Responsible Gaming principle at stake.

The purpose of permanent account closure, self-exclusion and account blocking is to protect players at the exact moment they recognise a need to stop gambling and actively seek protection from future gambling activity.

Such protections are meaningful only if they remain effective when a player later experiences temptation, relapse or a change of mind.

If a player requests permanent account deletion, permanent closure or account blocking, but is later able to regain access and continue gambling, the protective purpose of those measures is fundamentally undermined.

Responsible Gaming protections are not designed merely to stop gambling for a short period of time. They exist to protect players from future harm after they have made a conscious decision to stop.

In my case, I repeatedly communicated my wish to permanently stop using the platform, yet I was later able to regain access and continue depositing funds.

For these reasons, I respectfully submit that Casoo failed to adequately enforce its own territorial restrictions and failed to effectively implement my repeated requests for permanent account deletion, permanent closure and account blocking.

I therefore ask AskGamblers to carefully review the attached evidence and correspondence and assist in obtaining a fair resolution.

Kind regards.