Self-Exclusion Not Applied After Addiction Disclosure at Bitz Casino

Original complaint

I am submitting this complaint regarding Bitz Casino and what I believe is a serious failure of responsible gambling protections.

This case is not simply about gambling losses.

The issue is that Bitz continued accepting deposits and promoting gambling activity after I explicitly disclosed gambling addiction and requested permanent self-exclusion.

Key facts:

• I clearly informed the casino that I suffer from gambling addiction
• I repeatedly requested permanent self-exclusion / permanent blocking
• Bitz explicitly refused permanent exclusion
• Only temporary restrictions were offered
• The restriction itself could later be manually reversed through support
• Promotional offers and bonuses continued after addiction disclosure
• Deposits continued to be accepted

The most concerning aspect is that the “self-exclusion” system was effectively reversible during the exclusion period itself.

At one point, after the account had been blocked, support offered to reopen the account manually upon request. This completely defeats the purpose of meaningful self-exclusion protection for addiction-related cases.

A responsible gambling system cannot function properly if:

• addiction is disclosed
• exclusion is requested
• access remains reversible
• and promotional activity continues afterward

Casino Guru reviewed the evidence and concluded that the casino should have acted immediately after the addiction disclosure.

I believe this behavior raises serious concerns regarding:
• responsible gambling compliance
• player protection standards
• and the legitimacy of Bitz’s self-exclusion system

I am requesting that this case be formally reviewed and publicly documented.

Thank you for your time.