Cross brand self exclusion

[mojoey]

Hello i have been self excluded with nrg.bet of sharedbet ltd yet I was told by pricedup.bet (also of sharedbetltd) that I CAN bet with them.

They are both under the same brand so surely this shouldn't be the case.

Any help in understanding this would be greatly appreciated.

 

[dunover]

Hello i have been self excluded with nrg.bet of sharedbet ltd yet I was told by pricedup.bet (also of sharedbetltd) that I CAN bet with them.

They are both under the same brand so surely this shouldn't be the case.

Any help in understanding this would be greatly appreciated.

That would apply in decent jurisdictions like the UK and Sweden say, but I'm not sure if other entities do things differently.

 

[mojoey]

That would apply in decent jurisdictions like the UK and Sweden say, but I'm not sure if other entities do things differently.

This is in the UK yes, do you know where I can find the jurisdiction?

 

[dunover]

This is in the UK yes, do you know where I can find the jurisdiction?

It is part of Off Course Bookmakers Limited (licence number

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

) therefore all sites under that licence, which will be listed if you go to the UKGC pages, should exclude you if one does.

 

[mojoey]

It is part of Off Course Bookmakers Limited (licence number

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

) therefore all sites under that licence, which will be listed if you go to the UKGC pages, should exclude you if one does.

Is seems like are under a different license yet displayed literally next to eachother on the brand page.

 

[dunover]

Could be an affiliate page then.

 

[mojoey]

Could be an affiliate page then.

Does that mean I can have an account with both?

 

[jasonuk]

For the sake of transparency, the OP sent me a direct message at 9am this morning (three hours before this thread) asking for information about multi-operator self exclusion (MOSE).

A search for the title of both your thread and message would have uncovered this thread from last year as one of the top results - which has input from the head of PAB, myself, multiple reps and others.

As that thread explains, what you are looking for doesn't strictly exist, there are license conditions that a company should take all reasonable steps regarding a group company - and naturally there are numerous caveats that make it much weaker than it should be.

Hello i have been self excluded with nrg.bet of sharedbet ltd yet I was told by pricedup.bet (also of sharedbetltd) that I CAN bet with them.

They are both under the same brand so surely this shouldn't be the case.

Any help in understanding this would be greatly appreciated.

From a quick search, it's unclear what exactly the commercial relationship is:

• PricedUp is linked to Off Course Bookmakers Limited (
  You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
  ), who have operated one retail shop since 2009 and been licensed for online sports betting since September 2022 and casino products since April 2024.
• Rhino.Bet and NRG.bet are linked to SharedBet Limited (
  You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
  ) who have been licensed since January 2024.

So we have different businesses, different licenses, different head offices, and the website you've quoted also mentions a "platform" - so that could be anything from one common business to a technology license. They're not the same "brand" (because there are three distinct brands) and it's not even clear they are part of the same organisation.

So it'll come down to the respective terms and conditions, which seem on the vague side.

<edit>Looks like this is their second post about cross-operator self-exclusion, after making incorrect assertions about Coral a month ago (and expecting their money back). If you are self-excluded from that many sites, perhaps you need to be seeking help rather than trying to work out if you can or can't play at a given site... you self-excluded for a reason.</edit>

 

[dunover]

It should be a simple thing to unravel - any site run under UKGC rules should be listed under its relevant licence holder therefore multiple properties using the same licence should apply exclusion across them all once just one is actioned. Sharing a software platform is irrelevant: operator end-user licence number is king here.

We saw 888 get fined hugely for breaching this and they had to track down and refund all losses to any UK player who lost money at one of their multitude of sites after SE from another. It was used by them and other licensees to take 'no-lose' deposits for many years, another notorious case being EveryMatrix (no longer licensed here) with the notorious 'EMSEB' as I termed it back then (EveryMatrix Self Exclusion Bullshit) whereby you deposit and lose, they keep the money. Deposit and win then miraculously they suddenly became aware at withdrawal time you were SE'd at another of their sites so used that as justification not to pay you and refunded just the deposits, sometimes doing even only that after complaints and reporting them. They got a huge fine too.

On the other hand, if players are gambling at one site under a license it should be spotted and prevented by the business when attempting to use another. If a player is trying to circumvent this by using slightly or significantly changed personal details to try and have a 'no-lose' shot themselves, then in my view they should forfeit the money.

To use co-licensees as some kind of parachute when they lose is bad form. What I am reading suggests to me a strategy rather than an unfortunate single event.

Of course, had the player won he would have immediately contacted the casino who had paid him out and told them they'd made a mistake in taking his play, so here's the excess over my deposits and please accept it back!

 

[jasonuk]

It should be a simple thing to unravel - any site run under UKGC rules should be listed under its relevant licence holder therefore multiple properties using the same licence should apply exclusion across them all once just one is actioned. Sharing a software platform is irrelevant: operator end-user licence number is king here.

Agreed, with the push by the UKGC to consolidate licenses together in recent years - if there's two distinct licenses there's probably a good reason why.

In this case, my thoughts are that the first two brands are in-house, and the third brand is a customer of their software stack. But as with the EveryMatrix debacle of old, that can always turn up nasty surprises down the line - particularly if they want an excuse to avoid paying out.

We saw 888 get fined hugely for breaching this and they had to track down and refund all losses to any UK player who lost money at one of their multitude of sites after SE from another.

This was the 2017 fine, which was the same license and the same systems but spread across multiple domains (casino, poker, sport, bingo), and quote "due to a technical failure in 888’s systems, over 7,000 customers who had chosen to self-exclude(1) from their casino/poker/sport platform were still able to access their accounts on their bingo platform. The issue went undetected for a prolonged period of time, meaning customers were able to deposit £3.5million into their accounts, and then continue to gamble, for over 13 months."

So in that case, it was a technical error that a self-exclusion that should apply didn't... the sister casino / multi-operator stuff is far more nuanced, and clearly wasn't in force in 2017 because groups like Entain and Flutter were turning a blind eye to it and making off like bandits.

On the other hand, if players are gambling at one site under a license it should be spotted and prevented by the business when attempting to use another. If a player is trying to circumvent this by using slightly or significantly changed personal details to try and have a 'no-lose' shot themselves, then in my view they should forfeit the money.

To use co-licensees as some kind of parachute when they lose is bad form. What I am reading suggests to me a strategy rather than an unfortunate single event.

Of course, had the player won he would have immediately contacted the casino who had paid him out and told them they'd made a mistake in taking his play, so here's the excess over my deposits and please accept it back!

Yup, we've discussed self-exclusion fraud to death as an industry concern, and given the OP has now asked this question of multiple groups seems somewhat suspicious. It will never be fool proof because any system will come up against a greater fool (or more malicious fraudster).