What Happened
A player from Portugal says they emailed Fairspin in September 2026 asking for a six-month pause with no way to reopen early. Instead of freezing the account, they say, the casino asked why they were leaving, bumped them to a higher VIP level and sent a time-limited deposit promo code. They deposited again on 29 and 30 September and want those deposits back plus a permanent closure. The player quotes support as saying the perks were meant to cheer them up.
How It Developed
- 2026-09-30Complaint opened. The mediator asked for the full email trail, whether gambling problems were mentioned in the pause request, whether the offered bonuses were used, and the deposit history.
- 2026-10-06The mediator rejected the case: the request was a plain six-month pause with no mention of addiction or loss of control, so the casino could not be expected to treat it as self-exclusion.
- 2026-10-15The mediator apologised for closing the case too early by mistake and reopened it, asking for an update.
- 2026-10-15The player said that, with the account still open, they had played again, and that on a later request they did state they have a gambling problem. They also say Fairspin's deposit limits let an over-limit deposit through and merely freeze the excess.
- 2026-10-20The mediator noted the 12 October message clearly reported a gambling problem and asked for any deposits and losses since then, and whether the account has now been closed. The player's reply is awaiting moderation.
Ongoing
Rejected once, then reopened; the mediator is checking deposits made after the player's 12 October message naming a gambling problem.
What Has (and Hasn't) Helped
The first lesson cost the player the first round: a request for a break that does not mention a gambling problem is not self-exclusion in the mediator's eyes, and the casino was not held to it. The second request, which did name the problem, is what the mediator is now examining. Say the words plainly in writing.