Hi everyone,

I am opening this thread to publicly report a severe violation of Responsible Gambling rules and basic player protection standards by Bitz Casino (bitz25.io).

Summary of the Dispute:
- Casino Domain: bitz25.io (Bitz Casino)
- Licence: Anjouan Gaming License
- Claim Amount:  $1480 USD)
- Cause: Unlawful premature reactivation of a self-excluded account resulting in financial loss.

Timeline of Events:
1. On August 11, 2026, I requested a self-exclusion due to gambling issues. A 3-month block was set until November 11, 2026.
2. I explicitly instructed support in writing: "Please do not unblock me under any pretext during these 3 months, even at my own request." The agent acknowledged this instruction.
3. On August 14, 2026 (less than 3 days later), during an impulsive moment, I asked to remove the block. Instead of upholding the self-exclusion or enforcing a cooling-off period, support unblocked my account in just 8 minutes.
4. Immediately after, I deposited a total of 1480 USD and lost it.
5. When I requested a refund of the deposits made after the breach, Support Agent "Lana" refused and admitted in writing:
"Bcё вepнo, Baм cooбщили, чтo Bы мoжeтe cнять блoкиpoвкy в любoй мoмeнт, тaк кaк y нac нeт cиcтeмы, кoтopaя этo кoнтpoлиpyeт."
(Translation: "That is correct, you were informed that you can lift the block at any time, as we do not have a system that controls this.")

Proof & Documents:
I have filed a formal regulatory complaint with the Anjouan Gaming Authority (ALSI) and hold full chat logs (Exhibits A–E) proving:
- Initial self-exclusion request stating gambling problems.
- Explicit binding instruction NOT to unblock.
- Instant unblocking on August 14.
- Written admission by Bitz support that they have NO technical system to enforce self-exclusion.
- Payment receipts totaling 1480 USD.

Request to Bitz Casino:
I request full financial restitution of 1480 USD deposited after the breach of self-exclusion and immediate permanent termination of my profile across all mirrors.

I advise all players to avoid Bitz Casino, as they completely ignore Responsible Gaming regulations and lack basic player safety controls.

Quote from: Andrei3344 on August 31, 2026, 07:16:09 AM

2. I explicitly instructed support in writing: "Please do not unblock me under any pretext during these 3 months, even at my own request." The agent acknowledged this instruction.
3. On August 14, 2026 (less than 3 days later), during an impulsive moment, I asked to remove the block. Instead of upholding the self-exclusion or enforcing a cooling-off period, support unblocked my account in just 8 minutes.
4. Immediately after, I deposited a total of 1480 USD and lost it.
5. When I requested a refund of the deposits made after the breach, Support Agent "Lana" refused and admitted in writing:

Sorry for your loss. It's sad to see you request a self-exclusion, and again, you request to unblock your account. In this case you are also responsible besides the casino being at fault. You lost your funds during gambling, and that’s why you create allegations against them. What action would you take if you win? Still, were you created in this thread?

However, I don’t believe they are going to refund. Instead call that a scam accusation; it’s a legal issue. Most probably you have to take legal action if possible. You may try with mediators who have been handling gambling issues. Besides that, you should have self-control before a self-exclusion.

Quote from: The Cryptovator on August 31, 2026, 10:09:25 AM

Quote from: Andrei3344 on August 31, 2026, 07:16:09 AM

2. I explicitly instructed support in writing: "Please do not unblock me under any pretext during these 3 months, even at my own request." The agent acknowledged this instruction.
3. On August 14, 2026 (less than 3 days later), during an impulsive moment, I asked to remove the block. Instead of upholding the self-exclusion or enforcing a cooling-off period, support unblocked my account in just 8 minutes.
4. Immediately after, I deposited a total of 1480 USD and lost it.
5. When I requested a refund of the deposits made after the breach, Support Agent "Lana" refused and admitted in writing:

Sorry for your loss. It's sad to see you request a self-exclusion, and again, you request to unblock your account. In this case you are also responsible besides the casino being at fault. You lost your funds during gambling, and that’s why you create allegations against them. What action would you take if you win? Still, were you created in this thread?

However, I don’t believe they are going to refund. Instead call that a scam accusation; it’s a legal issue. Most probably you have to take legal action if possible. You may try with mediators who have been handling gambling issues. Besides that, you should have self-control before a self-exclusion.

Hello.
Responsible gambling is not a "personal request," but an operator’s obligation fixed in the licensing terms (including Anjouan). Self-exclusion exists specifically to protect a player from impulsive decisions during a lapse in control.
When support removes a 3-month ban within 8 minutes upon the very first message and admits to having no control system in place, this is a direct violation of licensing standards—not "our shared fault." Had the casino complied with the basic rules of a cooling-off period, no subsequent deposits could physically have taken place.
Regarding court and the regulator: an official complaint has already been submitted to ALSI. This topic was created not for moral debates, but to document Bitz.io's failure to comply with basic player protection and responsible gambling rules.

Quote from: The Cryptovator on August 31, 2026, 10:09:25 AM

Quote from: Andrei3344 on August 31, 2026, 07:16:09 AM

2. I explicitly instructed support in writing: "Please do not unblock me under any pretext during these 3 months, even at my own request." The agent acknowledged this instruction.
3. On August 14, 2026 (less than 3 days later), during an impulsive moment, I asked to remove the block. Instead of upholding the self-exclusion or enforcing a cooling-off period, support unblocked my account in just 8 minutes.
4. Immediately after, I deposited a total of 1480 USD and lost it.
5. When I requested a refund of the deposits made after the breach, Support Agent "Lana" refused and admitted in writing:

Sorry for your loss. It's sad to see you request a self-exclusion, and again, you request to unblock your account. In this case you are also responsible besides the casino being at fault. You lost your funds during gambling, and that’s why you create allegations against them. What action would you take if you win? Still, were you created in this thread?

However, I don’t believe they are going to refund. Instead call that a scam accusation; it’s a legal issue. Most probably you have to take legal action if possible. You may try with mediators who have been handling gambling issues. Besides that, you should have self-control before a self-exclusion.

I understand that this topic shouldn't be called fraud; it would be more correct to call it a refusal to comply with Responsible Gambling principles.

I don't know if there is a clear understanding between the terms and condition that comes with self-exclusion request on the casino, song may have a policy that have to revoke on such over a particular time and this is where we must read and be careful to note all devices on their terms.

That's being said, self-exclusion to me is not a good decision for a business model that ends to advance on what they do except The Gambler by themselves decided for it and take action on their own, why should the casino be fully responsible for you when you can make a change at your end concerning self exclusion? Because this is where the big problem lies.

Quote from: Nathrixxx on August 31, 2026, 04:09:26 PM

I don't know if there is a clear understanding between the terms and condition that comes with self-exclusion request on the casino, song may have a policy that have to revoke on such over a particular time and this is where we must read and be careful to note all devices on their terms.

That's being said, self-exclusion to me is not a good decision for a business model that ends to advance on what they do except The Gambler by themselves decided for it and take action on their own, why should the casino be fully responsible for you when you can make a change at your end concerning self exclusion? Because this is where the big problem lies.

That is precisely the fundamental difference between a simple player request and mandatory regulatory requirements.
​Regarding the argument about a "bad decision for the business model": a license is a binding obligation, not an optional marketing feature. The gambling industry is inherently high-risk, and an operator is granted a legal license solely in exchange for strict player protection compliance. If a business model relies on ignoring cool-off periods and retaining funds from someone during a loss of control, that isn't a "business characteristic"—it is a direct breach of licensing terms.
​Technical failure of control mechanisms: Once a player submits an official self-exclusion request, the casino is obligated to immediately restrict access to the account and deposits for the specified duration. Unlocking the account 8 minutes later following a single chat request directly violates Responsible Gambling standards.
​Allocation of responsibility: The purpose of a self-exclusion tool is specifically to protect the player during emotional, impulsive moments. If the casino lifts restrictions within minutes, it invalidates the purpose of having rules and bears direct responsibility for any subsequent transactions.
​Legal aspect: Licensing authorities (including Anjouan) require operators to enforce cool-off periods. Support confirmed receipt of my instructions but failed to execute mandatory delay and verification procedures, making this a clear technical and administrative fault of the casino.

Quote from: Nathrixxx on August 31, 2026, 04:09:26 PM

I don't know if there is a clear understanding between the terms and condition that comes with self-exclusion request on the casino, song may have a policy that have to revoke on such over a particular time and this is where we must read and be careful to note all devices on their terms.

That's being said, self-exclusion to me is not a good decision for a business model that ends to advance on what they do except The Gambler by themselves decided for it and take action on their own, why should the casino be fully responsible for you when you can make a change at your end concerning self exclusion? Because this is where the big problem lies.

How we can help
We recommend all players who are concerned about their gambling behavior to take a break by using the self-exclusion feature for their gaming account. Self-exclusion is available for 7 days or up to 6 months.
To set up self-exclusion for any available period, contact our 24/7 support team at any time. Our specialists will help you with this. We also recommend contacting all other gambling websites where you have an account and requesting self-exclusion there.

This is the official position of BITZ Casino, as stated on their website.

What is the point of blocking if it can be canceled right away? Could the issue lie in BITZ's dishonesty?

This is your formal complaint? https://contesthunters.com/disputes/31 ?

Do you raise elsewhere in other ADR like CG, AG, casinomeister, or the likes?

Quote from: holydarkness on August 31, 2026, 04:48:53 PM

This is your formal complaint? https://contesthunters.com/disputes/31 ?

Do you raise elsewhere in other ADR like CG, AG, casinomeister, or the likes?

Good evening. Yes, that is my complaint. I also contacted CG, but there are still 11 hours left for the casino to respond (though BITZ most likely won't). BITZ support turned me down.

Quote from: Andrei3344 on August 31, 2026, 05:00:47 PM

Quote from: holydarkness on August 31, 2026, 04:48:53 PM

This is your formal complaint? https://contesthunters.com/disputes/31 ?

Do you raise elsewhere in other ADR like CG, AG, casinomeister, or the likes?

Good evening. Yes, that is my complaint. I also contacted CG, but there are still 11 hours left for the casino to respond (though BITZ most likely won't). BITZ support turned me down.

My apology, but the principle I am trying to force to the forum complainants' is that they are only allowed to have one ADR to mediate the case and not ADR-hopping from one to another until they find the best fitting ruling for them. As you've raised your case to CG, I will advise you to undergo the entire process with CG and abide their findings, and onl go to ContestHunters when [or if] CG refuse to mediate.

I am removing your case from CH, to hold strong to this principle, not because I don't want to mediate.

Quote from: holydarkness on August 31, 2026, 05:12:06 PM

Quote from: Andrei3344 on August 31, 2026, 05:00:47 PM

Quote from: holydarkness on August 31, 2026, 04:48:53 PM

This is your formal complaint? https://contesthunters.com/disputes/31 ?

Do you raise elsewhere in other ADR like CG, AG, casinomeister, or the likes?

Good evening. Yes, that is my complaint. I also contacted CG, but there are still 11 hours left for the casino to respond (though BITZ most likely won't). BITZ support turned me down.

My apology, but the principle I am trying to force to the forum complainants' is that they are only allowed to have one ADR to mediate the case and not ADR-hopping from one to another until they find the best fitting ruling for them. As you've raised your case to CG, I will advise you to undergo the entire process with CG and abide their findings, and onl go to ContestHunters when [or if] CG refuse to mediate.

I am removing your case from CH, to hold strong to this principle, not because I don't want to mediate.

Thank you very much for the answer provided. If the issue is not resolved via CG, will I be able to contact you again?

Quote from: Andrei3344 on August 31, 2026, 05:14:40 PM

Quote from: holydarkness on August 31, 2026, 05:12:06 PM

My apology, but the principle I am trying to force to the forum complainants' is that they are only allowed to have one ADR to mediate the case and not ADR-hopping from one to another until they find the best fitting ruling for them. As you've raised your case to CG, I will advise you to undergo the entire process with CG and abide their findings, and onl go to ContestHunters when [or if] CG refuse to mediate.

I am removing your case from CH, to hold strong to this principle, not because I don't want to mediate.

Thank you very much for the answer provided. If the issue is not resolved via CG, will I be able to contact you again?

No.

Depends on the closing statement that CG give. If CG refuse the case and/or couldn't draw a verdict, then yes, you are more tha welcome to contact CH and file your complaint, I will do my best to solve it. But if CG's final statement is a verdict that solve the issue by siding with the casino [thus, understandably perceived as "not resolved" from your POV], then we are all bound by that verdict. You're only allowed to have one AlternativeDisputeResolution, not MultipleDisputeResolutionAttempt

I was successful in resolving my responsible gambling dispute with Bitz, but their approach appears to have changed since then. In my case, the unresolved complaint caused a significant reputational hit, including a major drop in their Casino Guru Safety Index, which gave them a strong incentive to settle.

Based on Bitz allowing the most recent RG complaint to remain unresolved, it appears they may now be more willing to simply accept the reputational hit rather than compensate a player who brings a legitimate complaint. Time will tell if that is their approach going forward.

Bitz’s responsible gaming policy page does say that at minimum your account will be locked for 6 months during a self-exclusion. However, this policy was updated in the days after your incident and I couldn’t find any archived version of what it said before then. There is no point in having a policy at all if gamblers can just cancel the self-exclusion on a whim after a few days.

From what you’re saying, it doesn’t seem like you illegally tried to bypass the exclusion by creating a new account and instead they allowed you to play from the same account you had already been using. They really should have had stronger safeguards to prevent you from gambling during this period.