Hello there,
I wouldn't say this is a question of licensing authority, it's more about actual business standards.
Allow me to go through the main problem with the self-exclusion at first:
a) player requested his/her account to be closed. Casino closes the account. A few days later the same player asks for his account to be reopened. The casino opens the account because the player asked for it.
b) player requested his/her account to be closed due to gambling issues because he/she is unable to control his passion and needs special care. Casino closes the account. A few days later the same player requests his/her account to be opened. The casino does not open the account because the gambling issues were mentioned earlier.
Furthermore and sadly, it's the business standard that to get self-excluded from some "sister" site, the player must inform the sister casino as well. Please do not think that all casinos owned by the same owner/group share those requests through the group automatically.
I'd call it a nice surprise if you come across a group that acts differently.
Feel free to check our project focusing on helping players with addiction, you may find those useful:
https://casino.guru/problem-gambling
https://casino.guru/global-self-exclusion-initiative
Simon is working tirelessly to establish a global self-exclusion tool.
We believe that the current situation in the gambling industry needs radical improvement to provide effective protection for those who need it.
Αυτόματη μετάφραση: