What Happened
A player from Quebec says Bitguruz support sent him to the settings page to shut his account, where the only option was a break of up to a week; he set one day, was told the next day he was fine, and lost more. He also says a three-times-deposit wagering requirement carried over between deposits until support reset it. Bitguruz said he first raised closure on 4 August, was told it goes through email, and was blocked for good minutes after emailing about his gambling addiction. The mediator saw no failure here.
How It Developed
- 2026-09-04Complaint opened, asking for a refund of about C$300 and calling the short self-exclusion options misleading.
- 2026-09-07The mediator explained the difference between closing an account and self-exclusion and asked for the closure requests and whether the player had given a reason.
- 2026-09-10Bitguruz replied with screenshots: no contact before 4 August, a chat pointing the player to email for permanent closure, and a permanent block minutes after the addiction email.
- 2026-09-11The player said that did not address the stacking wagering rule, and that 1-to-7-day blocks are useless for an addict.
- 2026-09-17The mediator rejected the complaint: the account was closed as soon as the gambling problem was disclosed, and the wrong x3 requirement was fixed when raised, with no shown loss. BetBlocker and a global self-exclusion scheme were recommended.
Rejected
The mediator found Bitguruz closed the account as soon as a gambling problem was disclosed, and the wagering glitch caused no proven loss.
What Has (and Hasn't) Helped
Nothing was refunded. The deciding fact was timing: a casino is held to a self-exclusion only from the moment you clearly say you have a gambling problem, and here the account was shut minutes after that email. Put the reason in writing the first time you ask.