What Happened
A player from British Columbia says Rainbet warned them at their first deposit that they were self-excluded at a linked sister casino, then let them deposit and play anyway. They say they asked for permanent exclusion many times, told support they were addicted, lost about C$10,000, and after the account was finally closed opened a second one with the same ID and lost about the same again. They asked for about C$20,000 back after eight months of emails. The mediator rejected the claim for lack of evidence.
How It Developed
- 2026-07-16Complaint opened. The mediator asked whether any account was still open, for the earliest message telling the casino about a gambling problem, and whether a refund had been requested.
- 2026-07-17The player said both accounts were now closed and blocked, that they had no copies of the chats, that both accounts were verified with the same ID, and that refund requests had gone unanswered since November 2025.
- 2026-07-23The mediator said a refund of losses needs proof that the casino was told about a gambling problem and failed to act. A warning about exclusion elsewhere does not count, and the accounts were already closed. Rejected.
Rejected
No evidence the player had told Rainbet about a gambling problem, and both accounts were already closed.
What Has (and Hasn't) Helped
The claim fell on missing evidence: no saved chats or emails showing the casino was told about the addiction. If you ask a casino to exclude you, do it by email with a clear subject line and keep it. That record is the only thing a mediator can act on later.