Casino Complaint UKCG license, self exclusion across all brand or just the individual site?

darl1992

Newbie member
Joined
May 31, 2021
Hi all, my question is involving yet another self exclusion topic and from what I’ve read on other forums the views are split. If the operators all have the same license number, does the casino itself have to exclude you from all brands when you self exclude? I attached the licensing document from the UKGC. My issue is the casino is not paying me out winning stating I was self excluded from its sister site 6 months ago, however in the TC’s it states this: If you self-exclude on a website operated by Genesis Global Limited, the self-exclusion will only apply to the website specified upon confirmation. If you would like to self-exclude on all Genesis Global brands, you can do so by contacting Customer Support via Live Chat. For UK players, if you self-exclude on a website operated by Genesis Global Limited, it will apply to all other brands. I am NOT a UK player so I thought this tc did not apply to me? Any input would be great thanks.
 

Attachments

  • F46EEA9D-E076-407E-B755-00D869A2DF48.jpeg
    F46EEA9D-E076-407E-B755-00D869A2DF48.jpeg
    147.3 KB · Views: 14

darl1992

Newbie member
Joined
May 31, 2021
And to confirm it is Casino Joy, and the self exclusion was solely for Casula. They have both MGA and UKGA licenses, making it seem even harder to understand, because does it not make it a lose lose situation for the player? For instance it’s like saying “yes you can play here under our Malta license but If you win big, we will refer to our UK license and stare you were self excluded. If I am way wrong please correct me. Much thanks.
 

bamberfishcake

Senior Member
MM
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Location
Essex
Only the UKGC mandates that Self-Exclusion at one brand to be applied automatically across an entire group or platform. The MGA is still per brand, although the operator is "encouraged" by the MGA to apply it across the group if a player shows clear signs of gambling problems.

They, however, do not have to do it and for any players not from the UK, the MGA regulation will always apply.

The MGA is working on a UKGC-type SE system but so far nothing has been done.
 

maxd

Complaints (PAB) Manager
Staff member
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Location
Saltirelandia
Keep in mind that some casino groups will split their casinos up into different license groups, thereby avoiding the UKGC's "cross group" SE rules, among other things. FWIW it's usually only the big names brands that pull this stunt and get away with it.

As to the OP's specific situation you're right: the casino is gaining an advantage over you by saying "SE applies to all casinos in the group". The thing is that it's almost impossible to argue that they should do any different. After all, aren't they "doing Responsible Gambling" by excluding you across the group? <insert halo emoji here> Just try to argue they aren't and I guarantee you'll be barking up that tree for a good long while.
 
Last edited:

Mark_BGO

Accredited Casino Representative
Joined
Jan 26, 2021
Location
Gibraltar
Keep in mind that some casino groups will split their casinos up into different license groups, thereby avoiding the UKGC's "cross group" SE rules, among other things. FWIW it's usually only the big names brands that pull this stunt and get away with it.

As to the OP's specific situation you're right: the casino is gaining an advantage over you by saying "SE applies to all casinos in the group". The thing is that it's almost impossible to argue that they should do any different. After all, aren't they "doing Responsible Gambling" by excluding you across the group? <insert halo emoji here> Just try to argue they aren't and I guarantee you'll be barking up that tree for a good long while.
I would say that if the player used the same registration details and their website terms state that SE is not across all brands then he may have a case as a non U.K. player.

IMHO they can’t say that SE is per brand and then refuse to pay out on a different brand because of SE. And if they do claim SE across brands and registration details are the same I’d be questioning why they allowed you to play!
 

Slottery

Senior Member
PABnoaccred
MM
Joined
Aug 21, 2017
Location
Malta
I would say that if the player used the same registration details and their website terms state that SE is not across all brands then he may have a case as a non U.K. player.

IMHO they can’t say that SE is per brand and then refuse to pay out on a different brand because of SE. And if they do claim SE across brands and registration details are the same I’d be questioning why they allowed you to play!

Bolded 100%. Casino need to recognize self-exclusion when they accept players registration, not by manual check which surprisingly is completed on point of withdrawal. If you are happy to take deposits, you pay winnings as well, especially when account is created and used 100% legit own details, it's not excuse that casino wouldn't know this loophole exist and that they are happy to use it really unethical way
 

darl1992

Newbie member
Joined
May 31, 2021
Thanks everyone. I agree 100%, and all registration is legit. I’ll be filing a PAB but I have a feeling I may not seeing those winning for weeks( if ever). Is this a common practice of big name brands? I have never come across it before but I see tons of threads on cross brand issues.
 

maxd

Complaints (PAB) Manager
Staff member
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Location
Saltirelandia
I would say that if the player used the same registration details and their website terms state that SE is not across all brands then he may have a case as a non U.K. player.

IMHO they can’t say that SE is per brand and then refuse to pay out on a different brand because of SE. And if they do claim SE across brands and registration details are the same I’d be questioning why they allowed you to play!
Agreed, but the UKGC -- for one -- has not supported that view. When these specific circumstances came up they did nothing, at least not publicly, and that in effect supported the casino's actions. To me it was a blatant corporate shell game but with those casinos enjoying the jurisdiction's support there was bugger all to be done about it.

To be fair most (all?) of the casinos that pulled this stunt have now moved on to other jurisdictions. It would take some digging to see who is still with the UKGC and if they're still up to their old tricks.
 
Top