Self-Exclusion Failures: A$1,000 at Instant Casino

What Happened

A player from Australia says they asked Instant Casino for self-exclusion and were given a 24-hour cooling-off period instead; once it lapsed they could log in again and lost more. The mediator read the emails and saw a different picture: the first message asked only to close the account, with no mention of gambling problems, and the player kept playing afterwards. About two weeks later they mentioned addiction for the first time, and the casino closed the account that same day.

How It Developed

• 2026-04-28Complaint opened; the mediator explained the difference between account closure and self-exclusion and asked for the emails.
• 2026-04-29The player sent them, adding that they didn't expect much could be done.
• 2026-05-05Rejected as unjustified: a single closure request with no gambling-harm reason, no follow-up after the cooling-off period, and a prompt closure once addiction was mentioned.

What Has (and Hasn't) Helped