It would be in every parties interests if CruiseCasino stopped this practice or at the very least listed their other sites in T & C's. It is just childish and a sorry excuse for them to refer to terms and conditions which are so ambiguous they are misleading. Although I did SE from other sites, as I've stated this was simply to end relationship with that Casino (not knowing it was an Every Matrix) I think many people do this - it also states in their T & C's that any account simply left 'inactive' will be charged a £5 per month 'admin' fee!
PS I'm a newbie here and can't find how to 'thank' or acknowledge replies to posts but .... Thanks.
The list I posted is from the UKGC site, and is the definitive list that should be posted in the terms and conditions at every site. The reluctance to do so may well be down to Slotobank being on the same licence, and it being so obviously dodgy, even to the extent that an Everymatrix rep signed up here and said they needed to investigate the issue.
The common theme seems to be a claim from the casino via an EveryMatrix database that the player has previously self excluded from one of the other sites in the UKGC list, but they don't know which one. However, it has to be one of those on this list, rather than "one of a large number of EveryMatrix casinos".
The problem seems to be down to how players close their accounts. It has been a common complaint that if players simply close their account, the casinos often make this as hard as possible, and often bombard the player with offers, promotional emails, even phone calls, in an effort to make them reconsider. It's hardly surprising therefore that some players feel that a "strong closure" is needed, rather than a regular one that is often ignored by the marketing department. It seems that using the self exclusion process to effect a "strong closure" of an individual account such that there is no retention effort from marketing has been a useful tool, but one that now has unintended consequences due to a significant tightening of responsible gambling regulations.
On top of this, we seem to have a web of deceit being operated by EveryMatrix and their client casinos. We get one explanation from Casino Cruise that they are prepared to pay the OP in full and then block their account, but that EveryMatrix have the absolute power to block even the OWNER of Casino Cruise from doing this. Now we have another player being told that EveryMatrix have no power whatsoever to interfere between player and casino, and that said player needs to complain to the casino who can decide the fate.
So in which of these two cases has a lie been told to the player? If EveryMatrix DO have the final say, then it's the second player that was lied to when they were told EveryMatrix has no power to resolve the complaint. However, if the second player was told the truth, then we have been mislead by the rep as to the real reason why it wasn't possible to honour the original promise made to the OP to pay in full and then shut the account.
If Casino Cruise wants to rely on the "sister casino" argument for self exclusion, then they are a "sister casino" of the notorious Slotobank.
For players, the UKGC list is probably more reliable than anything they have in their terms covering sister casinos, mainly because the UKGC list is an up to date one pertaining to licencing, and so any change MUST be recorded with the UKGC, who will update their list much faster than casinos tend to update their terms pages.
For UK players having trouble, a Subject Access Request directed at EveryMatrix trading as Jetbull should dig out the information that EveryMatrix seem unable to disclose. If there has been a genuine self exclusion, the SAR should get the details out of EveryMatrix, and players can then see whether the whole thing is a "stitch up" whereby ordinary account closures are automatically being recorded as "permanent self exclusion due to gambling problem" where there is no justification for this from the closure request itself.
We have already had other players finding that their ordinary request to close an account because they are dissatisfied with the service, the software, promotions, etc recorded as a "gambling problem" due to arrogant casino staff not accepting that anyone could be dissatisfied with their "No 1 casino" yet not have a gambling problem.
Hopefully, the UKGC incentive to take this out of the hands of individual casinos, and make them all use a system covering ALL UK licenced casinos, should afford better protection to those who have excluded due to a gambling problem, and make it harder for casinos to selectively apply the principle to winning players. I would expect the UKGC system to impose a requirement for all casinos covered to make a check against the self exclusion database irrespective of whether a new player has won, lost, or even got as far as making their first deposit. It's pretty obvious that with EveryMatrix, the check for self exclusion is only made when a player wins and withdraws, which in terms of the protection of a genuine pathological gambler, is too late - it's like checking your car's brakes only AFTER you have had a situation where they didn't work properly.
Everyone getting money from just a players. I hope everyone in future will be able to check good affiliate website or CM forum - just to be sure that he playing in right place.
