What Happened
A player from Lithuania says they told their Bitz account manager in writing in January 2026 that they have a gambling addiction and asked for a lifetime ban. According to the player, Bitz said permanent exclusion does not exist in its policy, set a break until July instead, reopened the account within an hour when asked, and kept sending bonus offers. They lost about $3,700 afterwards. Bitz said the manager offered two exclusion options, the player confirmed neither and took a bonus instead, so no block could be applied without consent.
How It Developed
- Complaint opened. The mediator asked for the promotional emails, the closure confirmation and the reopen requests, which the player sent by email.
- Bitz joined and sent its evidence privately. The mediator replied that permanent self-exclusion is an industry standard and that deposits after the first request should be refunded.
- The player supplied the deposit list since mid-January; the mediator repeated that a six-month exclusion, once set, should never be lifted.
- Bitz answered that the manager acted correctly and the responsibility lies with the player, who never authorised a block.
- The mediator closed the case as unresolved, found the player's requests valid, and advised a complaint to the Anjouan regulator.
Unresolved
The mediator found the self-exclusion requests valid and a refund due, but Bitz denied any fault and did not pay.
What Has (and Hasn't) Helped
The mediator backed the player's refund claim, but could not make Bitz pay. If a casino offers only a time-limited break when you have disclosed an addiction, put the word permanent in writing, decline any bonus, and keep the exchange: that is the record that earned the player a finding in their favour, even though the money was not returned.