Concern Regarding Self-Exclusion and Promotional Redirection to VIP Platform

I would like to raise a concern regarding responsible gambling practices involving Posido Casino.

After previously requesting self-exclusion due to gambling-related concerns, I later received promotional communication connected to a VIP platform called "VIPHive". Following this communication, I was able to access another gambling environment and incur further losses.

What concerns me most is not only the promotional targeting after self-exclusion, but also the apparent redirection toward continued gambling activity despite my prior exclusion request.

I would appreciate hearing whether other players or the Casino Guru team have encountered similar situations involving self-excluded players being approached through related VIP/promotional platforms.Should i ask for a refund and if yes fro whom?

Kind regards,

Christos

Hi Christos,

Thank you for sharing your experience. I understand why this situation feels upsetting, especially when responsible gambling concerns and self-exclusion are involved.

At the same time, situations like this can be quite complex and often depend on the exact timeline and relationship between the parties involved.

To better understand what happened, it may be helpful to clarify a few points:

Was your self-exclusion fully completed and confirmed at the time?

Was "VIPHive" directly connected to Posido Casino or the same operating group?

Were you redirected to another platform, or did you independently register and continue gambling there?

Was the communication a direct invitation connected to your previous casino activity, or more of a general promotional message?

It is important to keep in mind that self-exclusion generally applies to the casino (or operator group, depending on policies) where it was requested. Unfortunately, players may still encounter gambling-related advertising, broader VIP campaigns, affiliate marketing, or promotions from directly unrelated operators.

This does not automatically mean your concerns are invalid, especially if there was a direct connection between the entities involved. However, whether a refund would be appropriate would likely depend on the nature of that connection and the specific circumstances surrounding the self-exclusion and subsequent gambling activity.

If you feel vulnerable, I would consider closing all the mailboxes where such promos usually arrive and perhaps changing the phone number. Cutting all the links on your side may help maintain the distance.

Thank you for your response.

I would like to provide additional clarification regarding the connection between Posido and VIPHive.

The promotional invitation to VIPHive was sent directly by Posido to my personal email address after my self-exclusion had already taken place. The communication was clearly personalized and presented as an exclusive VIP invitation connected to my previous casino activity.

VIPHive appeared to be a separate platform where I completed a standard registration process. However, I used the same username and password that I had previously used with Posido, and the invitation itself was sent directly by Posido following my prior casino activity there.

For this reason, my concern is not related to general advertising, but rather to direct promotional targeting after self-exclusion, which ultimately led to further gambling activity and additional losses.

I am attaching the relevant screenshot for reference.

Kind regards,

Christos

screenshot

Dear Christos,

Thank you for providing the additional information.

I can understand why receiving a personalized VIP invitation after self-exclusion raises concerns from your perspective.

However, before considering whether this invitation could form the basis of a refund, it is important to clarify that the screenshot alone does not establish that Posido remained responsible for any subsequent gambling activity or losses.

Based on your description, it appears that you completed a separate registration process with VIPHive after receiving the invitation. At this stage, it is therefore important to understand the relationship between Posido, VIPHive, and any gambling operator where the later losses occurred.

However, before discussing any potential refund or complaint, I believe it is important to clarify one key point.

According to the information available from your previously rejected case, your original self-exclusion request was not completed because the required confirmation process was not finalized at that time, and the account therefore remained open until a later self-exclusion request was successfully processed.

For that reason, the timing of this VIPHive invitation becomes particularly important. Specifically, we would need to establish whether the email was sent while your account was still considered active or after a fully completed self-exclusion was already in place.

Dear Radka,

Thank you for your response and for taking the time to review this matter.

I would like to clarify that my self-exclusion had already been fully completed(after my previously rejected case ,i made all the necessary actions to complete it) at the time I received the VIPHive invitation, and I am able to provide supporting evidence of this if required.

Regarding the relationship between Posido, VIPHive, and the gambling operator where the subsequent losses occurred, I fully understand why this is an important aspect of the case. However, I do not have access to the corporate, operational, or ownership information necessary to determine the exact nature of that relationship.

What I can confirm is that I received a personalized promotional invitation directly from Posido after my self-exclusion had already been completed. Following that invitation, I registered on VIPHive and continued gambling, resulting in further losses.

For this reason, my concern is not based on a general advertising message encountered independently, but on a direct promotional communication sent by an operator from which I had already self-excluded.

While I can provide evidence of the completed self-exclusion and the promotional invitation itself, I believe that any clarification regarding the exact relationship between Posido, VIPHive, and the relevant gambling operator can only be provided by the operator(s) involved.

I am happy to provide any additional information or documentation that may assist in establishing the timeline and circumstances of the case.

Kind regards,

Christos

Hello Christos, thank you for your patience and explanation.

Given all the information, I would try reopening the old case or submitting a new one (because matters older than 6 months can be problematic) and then provide those posts as the complaint request.

Simply put, in my opinion it's worth presenting it as a case to the mediators. What do you think?