I self-excluded on Infiniza casinos – but could still play on others.

feedthebirds

Sølv

Sverige

11 måneder siden

Original

Oversættelse

Hi all,

I wanted to share something that’s been very frustrating, and I’m curious if others have experienced the same.

Earlier this year, I self-excluded from multiple Infiniza-operated casinos, including Lucky Jungle and Overload Casino. Despite this, I was later able to register and gamble on other Infiniza casinos like Refuel and Spinero, using the same personal details.

To me, this seems to go against what MGA requires, as self-exclusion should apply across all brands operating under the same license (MGA/B2C/367/2016 – Infiniza Limited). Still, I received no warning, and was even allowed to deposit and play again.

I’ve asked their support to provide a list of my self-exclusions and dates, but they’ve refused to give that information, which makes it hard for me to document what’s happened.

I haven’t contacted MGA yet, but I’m seriously considering it. Has anyone here had success getting a refund from Infiniza, or had MGA take action in similar cases?

Any advice or shared experiences would be really helpful.

Radka

feedthebirds

Social Media & Community Specialist

feedthebirds

11 måneder siden

Original

Oversættelse

Hej.

Dette er et meget reelt problem. Lad mig uddybe det, for det er ret kompliceret:

Der er i øjeblikket to grundlæggende niveauer af selvudelukkelse:

1) Enkeltoperatørniveau: Når man udelukker sig selv på et online casino, gælder selvudelukkelsen typisk ikke for andre operatører. Dette skaber et problem: Selvudelukkede spillere kan frit få adgang til og spille på andre casinowebsteder, hvilket sætter spørgsmålstegn ved den samlede effektivitet af sådanne selvudelukkelsesordninger. Det globale selvudelukkelsessystem (GSES) blev oprettet for at tilbyde en løsning, der eliminerer dette problem.

2) Landsdækkende/licensomfattende niveau: Nogle lande og online spillemyndigheder, såsom Storbritannien, Sverige eller Holland, har bredere selvudelukkelsesordninger, som kræver, at deres licenshavere (operatører) er en del af landsdækkende (licensomfattende) selvudelukkelsesordninger. Disse giver spillere mulighed for at udelukke sig selv fra alle casinoer, der er licenseret i et bestemt land eller af en bestemt regulator på én gang, hvilket skaber et bedre beskyttelsesniveau.

I øjeblikket kan en spiller, der kæmper med symptomer på problemspil, ikke udelukke sig selv på globalt plan. Det betyder, at selvom spilleren udelukker sig selv på et af de ovennævnte niveauer, er der stadig mange måder, hvorpå spillere kan omgå disse selvpålagte foranstaltninger.

Problemet jeg ser der er, at ingen international licens rent faktisk tilbyder en global selvudelukkelsesmulighed til spillere, hvilket betyder, at hele processen afhænger af hvert casino eller gruppe, operatør, ejer, platform...

I nogle tilfælde skal du udelukke dig selv fra hvert casino; i andre tilfælde kan du få en liste over casinoer, du kan udelukke dig selv fra, ved en enkelt anmodning.

For at forblive sikker, læs altid casinoets regler, bed om support og gem al relateret kommunikation til senere brug.

Har du lyst til at diskutere præcis hvordan du udelukkede dig selv i denne situation?

Hello.

This is a very real issue. Let me elaborate, please, because it is quite complicated:

There are currently two basic levels of self-exclusion:

1)Single-operator level: Typically, when self-excluding in an online casino, the self-exclusion does not extend to other operators. This creates a problem: self-excluded players can freely access and play at other casino websites, bringing the overall effectiveness of such self-exclusion schemes into question. The Global Self-Exclusion System (GSES) was created to offer a solution that eliminates this problem.

2) Nationwide/license-wide level: Some countries and online gambling regulators, such as the UK, Sweden, or the Netherlands, operate wider self-exclusion schemes, which require their licensees (operators) to be part of nationwide (license-wide) self-exclusion schemes. These allow players to self-exclude from all casinos licensed in a specific country or by a specific regulator at once, creating a better level of protection.

As of this moment, a player struggling with problem gambling symptoms cannot self-exclude on a global scale. This means that although the player self-excludes on one of the above-mentioned levels, there are still many ways in which players can bypass these self-imposed measures.

The problem I see there is that no international license actually offers a global self-exclusion option to players, which means that the whole process depends on each casino or group, operator, owner, platform...

In some cases you must self-exclude in each casino; in other cases you may get a list of casinos you may self-exclude by single request.

To stay safe, always read the casino rules, ask for support, and save all related communications for later use.

Do you care to discuss how precisely you self-excluded, in this situation, please?

Redigeret

feedthebirds

Radka

Sølv

Sverige

Radka

11 måneder siden

Original

Oversættelse

Thank you, Radka, for your response and for taking the time to explain the context.

To clarify: I self-excluded through each individual casino’s responsible gaming/self-exclusion tool (not via email or support), using the standard options offered directly in the user account settings. This was done on multiple Infiniza-operated brands, including Overload and Lucky Jungle. These sites clearly confirmed my self-exclusion and showed my account as permanently closed.

However, shortly after that, I was able to sign up, deposit and play on Refuel and Spinero – using the same personal details, email address, IP address, and payment methods. No warnings were shown, no blocking in place, and no indication that any self-exclusion was active or carried over.

When I contacted Infiniza directly, asking for a full list of casinos I was excluded from (to help me avoid triggering more harm), they refused to provide it. This makes it almost impossible to protect myself.

To me, this suggests their interpretation of self-exclusion is purely brand-level – even when multiple casinos operate under the same MGA license. I find this deeply concerning, as it undermines the intent of the self-exclusion and creates unnecessary risk for vulnerable users.

Do you have any insight into whether MGA has addressed this kind of practice before? And if I submit a formal complaint, could they intervene?

Radka

feedthebirds

Social Media & Community Specialist

feedthebirds

11 måneder siden

Original

Oversættelse

God dag til dig, og tak for hjælpen med detaljerne.

Ud fra det du beskriver, gjorde du tydeligvis hvad du kunne, og jeg er ked af, at det ikke endte særlig godt.

Som du kan se, er der stadig et potentielt hul. Ligesom jeg forklarede de samme koncepter til andre spillere, inklusive en liste over casinoer og "gruppe"-spørgsmålet, vil jeg også gerne nævne det her.

Jeg vil sige, at det allerførste, jeg ville tjekke, er reglerne og gruppens forbindelse til casinoets support eller manager. Jeg ville spørge mig selv:

Angiver casinoet/gruppen/ledelsen/tilknyttede selskaber, at man kan udelukke sig selv pr. anmodning i hele gruppen? Er det nævnt i reglerne?

Vil supportteamet bekræfte disse oplysninger til spilleren?

Hvordan er potentielt nye casinoer relaterede, og hvordan fungerer deres system?

Jeg vil gerne understrege, at casinoer, der tilhører den samme gruppe, kan have forskellige ledelsesteams og operere på forskellige platforme; uden en liste eller konkret bekræftelse vil du stå tomhændet tilbage, når der opstår problemer. Derfor vil jeg altid straks efter vellykket kommunikation kræve en liste over casinoer, jeg lige har udelukket mig selv fra gruppen/ejeren/brandet/labelen.

Hvis casinoerne ikke angiver gruppeudelukkelse som en mulighed, ville jeg ikke forvente, at de automatisk udelukker dig fra den samme gruppe og fremtidige casinoer inden for et brand/ledelse. 🙁

Vi behandler lignende følsomme spillerklager dagligt, og sådanne lister eller beviser på den endelige bekræftelse samt den indledte anmodning om selvudelukkelse er nødvendige for at konfrontere casinoet eller casinoerne.

Jeg kan sige, at MGA, eller nogen anden internationalt anvendt licens, ikke understøtter global selvudelukkelse inden for sin egen licens, så hvis de skal behandle din klage, skal du stadig bevise, at casinoet har lovet at selvudelukke dig, selv hos Refuel og Spinero - så vidt jeg kan gætte. Du er dog velkommen til at prøve det; efter min mening ville det værste udfald være en mangel på konkret reaktion.

Mine kolleger fra klageafdelingen vil helt sikkert forklare alle detaljer i forbindelse med klagen, der er indsendt via Casino Gurus klagecenter, og gøre deres bedste for at finde en fair holdning.

Hvis jeg må give et råd, når du udelukker dig selv, så læs altid vilkårene for den gruppemæssige eller globale udelukkelse, bekræft listen med support, og gem bekræftelsen. Meget ofte vil et casino udelukke dig fra blot sin hjemmeside. Fremtidige casinoer vil naturligvis aldrig være på listen, så jeg anbefaler at spørge support om det og handle på svaret.

Selvudelukkelse er efter min mening blevet et mareridt på grund af manglen på ensartede og meningsfulde standarder, der gælder globalt. Jeg håber, at der findes en måde at hjælpe dig med at forblive sikker.

Good day to you and I thank you for helping me with the details.

From what you described, you obviously did what you could and I'm sorry it did not end up very well.

As you can see, there is still a potential gap. Just as I explained the same concepts to other players, including a list of casinos and the "group" matter, I'd like to mention that here too.

I'd say the very first thing I would check is the rules and the group connection with the casino support or manager. I would ask myself:

Does the casino/group/management/affiliate state you can self-exclude per one request in the whole group? Is it mentioned in the rules?

Will the support team confirm this information to the player?

How are potentially new casinos related and how does their system work?

I want to convey that casinos belonging to the same group can have different management teams and operate on various platforms; without a list or concrete confirmation, you will be left empty-handed when issues occur. Thus, upon successful communication, I would always straightaway demand a list of casinos I have just successfully self-excluded from within the group/owner/brand/label.

If the casinos do no not state group exclusion as an option, I would not expect them to exclude you from the same group and future casinos within a brand/management automatically. 🙁

We deal with similar delicate players' complaints daily, and such lists or proofs of the final confirmation as well as the initiated self-exclusion request are necessary to confront the casino or casinos.

I can say that MGA, or any other internationally used license, does not support global self-exclusion within its own license, so if they are going to address your complaint, you will still have to prove the casino promised to self-exclude you, even at Refuel and Spinero - as far as I can guess. However, feel free to try that; in my opinion, the worst outcome would be a lack of concrete response.

My colleagues from the Complaint Team will surely explain all details associated with the complaint submitted through the Casino Guru Resolution Center and do their best to find the fair stance.

If I may offer some advice, when self-excluding, always read the terms of the group or global exclusion, confirm the list with support, and save the confirmation. Very often a casino will exclude you just from its site. Future casino will obviously never be on the list, so I recommend asking support about it and acting on the response.

Self-exclusion has become a nightmare, in my opinion, due to a lack of consistent and meaningful standards that apply globally. I hope there is a way to help you stay safe.

daybyday

Sølv

Tyskland

6 måneder siden

Original

Oversættelse

På lidt over 14 timer (fra 07:07 til 21:28) indbetalte jeg flere transaktioner fra €300 til €9.000, i alt titusindvis af euro.

Denne hurtige rækkefølge af indskud af høj værdi er ikke rekreativt spil; det er et skoleeksempel på en spiller, der mister kontrollen, sandsynligvis jagter tab og udviser yderst destruktiv adfærd.

Operatørens fejl: Ingen intervention, ingen refusion, ingen hjælp

Trods dette yderst tydelige mønster – en fuldstændig og farlig afvigelse fra min normale aktivitet – tillod Infinzia Ltd. hver eneste succesfulde indbetaling at gå igennem.

1. ❌ Ingen indgriben: Der var ingen afbrydelse, intet telefonopkald og ingen e-mail fra deres ansvarlige spilteam, der tjekkede min velbefindende eller håndhævede nogen form for nedkølingsperiode. De accepterede simpelthen pengestrømmen.

2. ❌ Ingen anerkendelse af skade: De behandlede €6.000, derefter €6.500, derefter €6.800, derefter €9.000, alt sammen inden for få timer, og behandlede dette som normal forretning. Dette demonstrerer en fuldstændig tilsidesættelse af deres lovgivningsmæssige forpligtelse til at beskytte sårbare spillere.

3. ❌ Ingen refusion: Selv da omfanget af skaden blev klart, har der ikke været noget tilbud om refusion for disse indbetalinger foretaget, mens jeg tydeligvis var midt i problematisk ludomani, og de undlod deres omsorgspligt.

For at gøre tingene værre skete alt dette, da jeg allerede havde forsøgt at udelukke mig selv på tværs af deres platform (som andre i denne tråd har oplevet), og alligevel tillod de mig stadig at registrere mig og bruge tusindvis af kroner på et affilieret brand.

Denne transaktionslog er et afgørende bevis på, at Infinzia Ltd. prioriterer profit frem for spillernes sikkerhed. De driver en indbetalingshane til problemspillere og yder ingen effektiv intervention eller hjælp.

Jeg opfordrer alle med lignende logfiler eller oplevelser til at rapportere dem til den relevante licensmyndighed.

Jeg har endelig efter tre år fået adgang til disse filer fra licenshaveren, men jeg kan ikke gøre noget.

file

In just over 14 hours (from 07:07 to 21:28), I deposited multiple transactions ranging from €300 to €9,000, totalling tens of thousands of Euros.

This rapid-fire sequence of high-value deposits is not recreational gambling; it is a textbook example of a player losing control, likely chasing losses, and engaging in highly destructive behaviour.

The Operator’s Failure: No Intervention, No Refund, No Help

Despite this extremely evident pattern—a complete and dangerous departure from my normal activity—Infinzia Ltd. allowed every single successful deposit to go through.

1. ❌ No Intervention: There was no interruption, no phone call, and no email from their responsible gaming team checking on my welfare or enforcing any cooling-off period. They simply accepted the money flow.

2. ❌ No Recognition of Harm: They processed €6,000, then €6,500, then €6,800, then €9,000, all within hours, and treated this as normal business. This demonstrates a complete disregard for their regulatory obligation to protect vulnerable players.

3. ❌ No Refund: Even when the extent of the harm became clear, there has been no offer of a refund for these deposits made while I was clearly in the throes of problematic gambling and they failed their duty of care.

To make matters worse, all of this occurred when I had already tried to self-exclude across their platform (as others in this thread have experienced), and yet they still allowed me to register and spend thousands on an affiliated brand.

This transaction log is conclusive evidence that Infinzia Ltd. is prioritising profit over player safety. They operate a deposit faucet for problem gamblers and provide zero effective intervention or help.

I urge anyone with similar logs or experiences to report them to the relevant licensing body.

I have finally after three years gained access to these files from the licensee, but I can’t do anything

file

Radka

daybyday

Social Media & Community Specialist

daybyday

6 måneder siden

Original

Oversættelse

Hello,

Considering the significance of those experiences, I believe you are already aware that you can submit a complaint with us; however, it seems your intention is to inform others and escalate the matter to the licensing authority.

Let me know if you want to talk more, please.