What Happened
A player from Italy says they asked BC.Game to self-exclude because gambling was harming them, then were able to open new accounts under other email addresses on the same phone and computer and lose several thousand euros more. They put the disputed amount at €3,000 as a low estimate. According to the player, BC.Game support first said it would escalate the case, then said it would not look into the other accounts because having more than one breaks its rules.
How It Developed
- Complaint opened. The player asked for an investigation of all linked accounts, a full transaction history and a refund of losses made after the exclusion request.
- The mediator asked for a timeline, whether the player still had access, and a copy of the original exclusion request; the player sent documents by email.
- The mediator said the only mention of gambling harm it could find dated from 23 July, after the account was already closed, and warned that without earlier proof no refund could be requested.
- The player pointed to an official self-exclusion notice from BC.Game dated 11 June, marketing emails sent days later and a new account opened on 26 June, and asked the mediator to make the casino produce its records.
- The mediator rejected the complaint: the original request was not available, so it could not be shown that the exclusion was for addiction or that BC.Game broke its duty of care.
Rejected
The mediator found no proof the player had told BC.Game about a gambling problem before the later deposits.
What Has (and Hasn't) Helped
Nothing moved the case. If you self-exclude for addiction, say so in plain words and keep a copy of that message. A closure notice on its own did not count, because it did not show why the account was closed.