Jozef and I agreed that associating self-exclusion with the Curaçao license is nonsensical. It has no meaning aside from misleading the player completely.
Self-exclusion works basically on those levels:
1) Single-operator level: Typically, when self-excluding in an online casino, the self-exclusion does not extend to other operators. (This creates a problem: self-excluded players can freely access and play at other casino websites, bringing the overall effectiveness of such self-exclusion schemes into question.)
2) Nationwide/license-wide level: Some countries and online gambling regulators, such as the UK, Sweden, or the Netherlands, operate wider self-exclusion schemes, which require their licensees (operators) to be part of nationwide (license-wide) self-exclusion schemes. These allow players to self-exclude from all casinos licensed in a specific country or by a specific regulator at once, creating a better level of protection.
In hand with that, once the account is self-excluded due to gambling addiction, no license changes should affect it. That's, pardon my French, bullshit.
If the casino is now saying that they can't exclude you on "license level," that's correct, yet the account should have never been reopened like this in the first place because there has never been a working tool to "exclude by license"...
Αυτόματη μετάφραση: