Megapari Casino - プレイヤーの自己排除リクエストは無視されました。

I am filing this complaint against Megapari for repeatedly ignoring my formal self-exclusion requests and allowing me to continue gambling despite clear instructions to close my account.

On 8 July 2025, I explicitly requested permanent self-exclusion and closure of my Megapari account (ID: 884050393). I provided all requested information and identification documents.

Instead of honoring this request, Megapari:

Kept my account fully active,

Continued to accept deposits,

Sent promotional emails and offers,

Offered bonuses instead of applying self-exclusion,

Suggested temporary "breaks" rather than permanent closure.

I reconfirmed my closure request multiple times, including on:

11 August 2025

13 August 2025

14 August 2025

Despite these repeated instructions, the account remained open and operational for months.

As a result, I continued to deposit and lose thousands of dollars after 8 July 2025, losses that would not have occurred if Megapari had complied with its Responsible Gambling obligations.

When I later demanded a refund, Megapari simply responded that they "do not perform refunds of funds," ignoring the fact that the losses occurred only because they failed to enforce self-exclusion.

This behavior represents a serious breach of player protection standards and responsible gambling rules.

I am requesting:

A refund of all deposits made after 8 July 2025,

Formal acknowledgment that my self-exclusion request was ignored,

Compensation for the harm caused by this failure.

I have full evidence available, including:

Original self-exclusion emails,

Follow-up communications,

Promotional messages received after my request,

Proof of deposits made after the exclusion date.

Important notice:

Casino Guru will never ask for payments or access to your accounts to complete KYC. If someone claims to be from Casino Guru and does that, do not share any information.

We only contact players through this official complaint thread or via @casino.guru e-mail addresses. Always check the sender’s domain and verify your complaint resolver’s e-mail address by clicking on their avatar visible inside the official complaint thread.

If anything seems suspicious, contact us directly.

Stay safe.

Dear marubio,

Thank you very much for submitting your complaint. I'm sorry to hear about your problem.

First, I’d like to clarify the difference between account closure and self-exclusion:

• Closing an account is a simple process with minimal impact—players can reopen their accounts at any time, and the casino has no ongoing obligations toward them.
• Self-exclusion, on the other hand, comes with stricter restrictions. When a player successfully requests self-exclusion, the casino agrees not to reopen the account, except under specific circumstances (such as after a cooling-off period, but never for players with gambling problems).

Could you please forward me the account closure requests you sent to the casino, along with the casino's responses, and all the subsequent communication you had regarding the closure of your account? You can send them to me at veronika.f@casino.guru.

Could you also specify when your account was eventually closed?

Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

Best regards,

Veronika

Dear Veronika,

Thank you for your message.

I would like to confirm that I have already forwarded all the requested information and evidence to your email address (veronika.f@casino.guru).

The documentation sent includes:

My original self-exclusion request from 8 July 2025,

All subsequent communications with Megapari,

Emails where the casino offered bonuses instead of enforcing self-exclusion,

Promotional messages received after my request,

Proof of deposits made after 8 July 2025,

The casino’s recent response admitting that the account was blocked "later,"

Evidence of unusually high deposit activity in short periods without any responsible gambling intervention.

Regarding your question about the closure date:

The account was not closed immediately after my request. It remained active for a significant period and was only blocked much later, after continued deposits and losses. The exact confirmation of the final closure is included in the documents I have sent to you.

Please let me know if you require any additional information.

Thank you again for your assistance.

Best regards,

Martin R.

Hello marubio and Veronika!

We would like to outline the procedural context in which the player’s request was handled, as this case involved multiple types of requests and therefore could not be processed as an immediate, straightforward account closure.

From our side, the player’s communication included both a request related to account closure and separate demands for a refund, including references to potential legal action. Once refund claims are raised, the case must be handled with additional care to ensure that all actions taken are properly confirmed and documented, especially when irreversible measures are involved.

For clarity, the sequence of events was as follows:

• On 13 August, the player expressed the intention to close the account.

• Shortly thereafter, the communication shifted to refund demands rather than a clear and final closure instruction.

• On 19 August, the player formally requested a refund and referenced legal action. At that stage, the case required review by the appropriate department, as it was no longer limited to account closure alone.

• On the same day, the player was asked to confirm whether account closure was still his final intention, as refund-related communication had become the primary focus.

• No further response was received from the player for an extended period.

• On 21 January, the player contacted us again, reiterating refund demands while also stating that the account had not been closed.

• Before applying permanent account closure, we requested explicit confirmation of the player’s final intent, in line with standard procedure, as irreversible actions should only be taken once all outstanding matters and intentions are clearly confirmed.

• After receiving clear confirmation that the player wished to proceed with account closure, the request was executed accordingly.

At no point was a confirmed and unambiguous closure request ignored. The timing of the closure was influenced by the need to properly process refund-related communication and to obtain explicit confirmation before applying a permanent restriction.

Based on the above, we believe the case was handled in accordance with internal procedures and responsible gambling standards, ensuring that all actions were taken only after the player’s intentions were clearly established.

We remain available should any further clarification be required.

Kind regards,

Megapari Team

Dear Veronika and Megapari Team,

Thank you for the response.

I would like to add an essential clarification that directly contradicts Megapari’s explanation:

My account remained fully active until January 2026, despite the fact that I had already submitted a formal self-exclusion request with all required documentation on 8 July 2025.

This means that:

A clear self-exclusion request was made on 8 July 2025,

The account was NOT closed at that time,

The account remained open and operational for approximately six additional months,

Deposits continued to be accepted throughout that entire period.

Additionally, as shown in the evidence I have already provided to Veronika, after 8 July 2025 I repeatedly requested both permanent closure and self-exclusion on multiple occasions, including:

11 August 2025

13 August 2025

14 August 2025

In all these communications I clearly stated my intention to stop gambling and to have my account permanently closed. Despite these repeated and explicit requests, the operator never carried out the self-exclusion and kept the account active.

Regarding Megapari’s statement that the case became "complex" due to refund discussions:

A refund request does not override or cancel a self-exclusion request. Responsible gambling standards require that once a player expresses the need to stop gambling due to addiction-related concerns, the operator must immediately block the account to prevent further harm.

Instead, after my initial request:

I was offered bonuses and incentives,

I was encouraged to continue playing,

No limits or protections were applied,

My account remained active for months,

Deposits were continuously accepted.

The operator claims that closure required additional confirmation. However, when a player clearly requests to stop gambling for responsible gambling reasons, multiple confirmations are not required. The duty of care lies with the casino, not with the vulnerable player.

The fact that:

my original request was made on 8 July 2025,

I reiterated that request several times afterwards, and the account was only finally closed in January 2026

clearly demonstrates that the self-exclusion was ignored and not properly enforced.

Therefore, I maintain my position and respectfully request:

A refund of all deposits made after 8 July 2025,

Formal acknowledgment that my self-exclusion requests were not properly enforced.

Thank you for your assistance.

Best regards,

Martin R.

Dear Megapari Casino Team,

Thank you for reaching out to us and for providing additional information regarding the player's case. We appreciate your cooperation in this matter.

Dear marubio,

I have carefully reviewed the communication you forwarded to me. In the emails I received, you did not mention gambling addiction or any gambling-related problems as the reason for requesting account closure. Instead, you stated "personal reasons," which cannot be considered a valid self-exclusion request from a responsible gambling perspective.

Could you please confirm whether you explicitly mentioned gambling addiction and formally requested self-exclusion in any subsequent communication with the casino? If so, kindly forward those emails to me directly.

Without clear evidence that you requested self-exclusion due to gambling addiction, we will unfortunately not be able to assist you with refund claims based on alleged failure of responsible gambling protection.

Dear Veronika,

I would like to clarify an important point.

On 8 July 2025, I explicitly used the term "auto exclusión" (self-exclusion) in my original email to Megapari. This was not a simple account closure request for personal reasons.

The email clearly states:

"Solicito la auto exclusión y bloqueo de mi cuenta en Megapari."

This constitutes a formal self-exclusion request. I also provided my ID and account number in the same communication.

Under responsible gambling standards, the explicit use of the term self-exclusion should trigger immediate permanent restriction procedures, regardless of whether the player explicitly mentions the word "addiction."

Despite this formal request, the account remained active until January 2026 and deposits continued to be accepted.

I kindly ask you to reconsider the classification of this case, as the initial request was indeed a self-exclusion request, not merely a general account closure.

Best regards,

Martin

Dear marubio,

I understand your perspective; however, as mediators, we must follow specific internal guidelines when assessing refund requests related to alleged failures of self-exclusion.

Casinos are generally required to act immediately when a player clearly communicates gambling addiction, loss of control, or a gambling-related vulnerability. While you used the term "self-exclusion," the communication provided does not explicitly reference gambling addiction or an inability to control your gambling behavior. From a responsible gambling standpoint, this distinction is crucial.

Furthermore, the subsequent communication focused primarily on refund requests rather than reiterating a gambling-related vulnerability. Based on the evidence available, we cannot establish that the casino knowingly ignored a confirmed addiction-based self-exclusion request.

For these reasons, we are unable to determine that a breach of responsible gambling obligations occurred that would justify a refund of deposits made after 8 July 2025.

I understand this is not the outcome you were hoping for. However, given the documentation provided, we do not have sufficient grounds to pursue the matter further.

Best regards,

Veronika