Crypto Casino Complaint Cases cryptocasino.cc — the crypto casino complaints registry

Crypto Casino Complaints / Bitguruz / Self-Exclusion Failures

Self-Exclusion Failures: €1,800 (refund of €1,675 requested) at Bitguruz

StatusRejected
Amount€1,800 (refund of €1,675 requested)
PlayerBulgaria
Opened2026-09-10
Resolution time40 days

What Happened

A player from Bulgaria says Bitguruz took deposits on 7 and 8 September 2026 and, when they disclosed a gambling addiction and asked to be excluded, closed the account and kept the money. They say cashback emails then led them to open a second account that evening with identical details, deposit €25, build €150 and disclose the addiction again, with the same result. They wanted €1,675 back and argued the casino lacks a Bulgarian licence. The mediator found no dated proof of the first disclosure and would not consider licensing.

How It Developed

  • 2026-09-10Complaint opened. The mediator asked which emails were used for each account, when the addiction was first disclosed, how the casino replied, and for all the messages by email.
  • 2026-09-11The player said the first disclosure was in the early hours of 8 September and the second account followed promo emails that evening; they also quoted the casino's own policy on blocking addicted players and restricted countries.
  • 2026-09-28The mediator said the screenshots showed an undated closure request from the second account only, asked for the dated first-account request, the casino's answer and the promo emails, and said licensing questions are outside Casino.guru's remit.
  • 2026-10-05The player sent more material by email.
  • 2026-10-12The mediator found it showed the player telling Bitguruz about an exclusion at a different casino, not a dated self-exclusion request at Bitguruz itself, and said the responsible gambling claim could not proceed without that. The case was closed the same day.
Rejected

The mediator never saw a dated self-exclusion request to Bitguruz from the first account, and Casino.guru does not rule on licensing, so the €1,675 refund was not pursued.

What Has (and Hasn't) Helped

Nothing recovered the deposits. The missing piece was a dated message to Bitguruz, from the first account, saying plainly that the player had a gambling problem and wanted to be excluded, together with the casino's reply. Keep that exchange; telling a casino you are excluded elsewhere does not count.

Same issue, other cases

Related Cases

2026-05-23 Bitguruz: Bonus Disputes · €2,250
A player from Belgium says Bitguruz closed their verified account over rude messages to staff while roughly 2,250 sat in the balance, money they say grew from a weekly cashback of about €1,036 that had already been wagered three times over.
Rejected
2026-05-26 Bitguruz: Self-Exclusion Failures · €500
A player from Finland says they requested a 500 euro withdrawal from Bitguruz and, right after, asked for the account to be closed because of a gambling addiction.
Resolved
2026-05-20 Bitguruz: Self-Exclusion Failures · $500
A player from the Czech Republic says they asked Bitguruz three times on 12 May 2026 to close their account permanently, but the casino kept offering bonuses and left the account open for a week.
Rejected
2026-07-23 Bitguruz: Self-Exclusion Failures · €117
A player says Bitguruz accepted their request on 10 June 2026 to close their account for good because of a gambling problem.
Resolved