What Happened
A player says they permanently self-excluded from Instant Casino at the end of April, then opened a second account on 6 May with a different email but the same identity, passed KYC and kept depositing. They argued the casino's duplicate-account and exclusion systems failed, asked for their losses back, and noted the site did not display its regulator's complaint seal. The mediator, after reading the emails, found the player had only asked to close the account, never mentioning a gambling problem or self-exclusion.
How It Developed
- 2026-05-22Complaint opened with a detailed list of alleged breaches of the Tobique regulator's code and a demand for a refund and an audit.
- 2026-05-22The player gave the dates: closure requested 29 April, a 24-hour cooling-off period, closure confirmed 1 May, new account 6 May; both accounts were shut after they complained to the casino.
- 2026-06-08The mediator explained the difference between closing an account and self-excluding, said the player's emails never mentioned gambling problems or self-exclusion, and rejected the complaint as unjustified.
Rejected
The mediator found the player had requested an ordinary account closure, not a self-exclusion for gambling problems, so no refund of the C$2,500 was supported.
What Has (and Hasn't) Helped
Nothing worked, because the paperwork did not match the claim. A closure request is not a self-exclusion. To be protected, the email must say you have a gambling problem and want to be self-excluded; only then is the casino on the hook if it lets you back in.