Android Phone

iPad

iPhone

Windows

Canadian Dollar

Euro

Norwegian Krone

New Zealand Dollar

Polish Zloty

US Dollar

Ainsworth

Amatic

Bally

Barcrest

Betsoft

Big Time Gaming

Booming Games

Elk Studios

Endorphina

Fantasma Games

FUGASO

Gaming1

iSoftBet

Kalamba Games

Microgaming

NetEnt

Nolimit City

Play'n Go

Pragmatic Play

Push Gaming

QuickSpin

Red Tiger Gaming

ReelPlay

Relax Gaming

Shuffle Master

Sthlm Gaming

Thunderkick

Wazdan

Yggdrasil Gaming

Cookie Casino

Idebit

Instadebit

Interac

Klarna

Maestro

Master Card

Neosurf

Paysafecard

Rapidtransfer

Skrill

Trustly

VISA

Zimpler

Chat

Email

Hi ▇▇▇▇▇▇ - welcome to CasinoReviews.com!

As this report will ultimately be published, your username cannot contain information that could be used to identify you, like parts of your name, your date/year of birth or email address. Could you please pick a new username and we'll change it for you?

Please read our Complaint Guidance and Complaint FAQs to ensure that you fully understand how our complaint management process functions.

As we are the ADR for the N1 Interactive Ltd license under the Malta Gaming Authority license there is certain information we have to provide you now.

You can find all the relevant information about this service here – https://casinoreviews.com/terms-of-use

To summarise.

– Use of this service does not preclude your seeking redress through court proceedings .

– This service is free to use for both the complainant and operator.

– At any point during the procedure the submitting party retains the right to withdraw their complaint. This does not preclude our right to continue the discussion with the involved operator of general issues related to the complaint (i.e. insufficiently clear terms and conditions).

– You are not obliged to obtain independent or legal advice or representation, though you may choose to do so.

If you have any questions about the above, let us know.

Please forward all communications you have had with the operator about this matter to complaints@casinoreviews.com. This includes highlighting any evidence you feel is of specific relevance, like self-exclusion requests.

Thanks,

CasinoReviews.com Complaints Team

Hi, Thank you for your message. I want to change it to this username please:  GS08534

Hi GS08534,

We're following-up on our previous communication - please forward all communications you have had with the operator about this matter to complaints@casinoreviews.com. This includes highlighting any evidence you feel is of specific relevance, like self-exclusion requests.

Thanks,

CasinoReviews.com Complaints Team

Hi, Thank you for your message. I have sent you hard evidence showing that I had a ban due to gambling problems, and this was clearly known to the casino. Given this, I should never have been allowed to gamble at any casinos operating under this license.

However, this still happened. It was clearly visible in their system, and the situation was undeniably obvious. It pains me deeply that my gambling problems at N1 Interactive Ltd escalated so severely. At a young age, I was particularly vulnerable, and I couldn’t stop because I was not refused access.

Hi GS08534,

Thank you for your emails.

We're going to address a number of the issues you are raising separately here.

i) Minimal levels of support - The regulations do require, as a minimum, email and phone support. However, that does not mean that ever licensee has to offer email and phone support. Where a licensee is offering an equivalent support type that is beyond the minimum, like Live Support, then that can and would be seen as a reasonable alternative to, for example, phone support.

ii) Marketing - where the operator has failed to remove you from a marketing list, this would be a licensing issue for the regulatory to review. It would not by default entitle you to any compensation except where a causal link could be shown that resulted in you gambling - i.e. a promotional mail that resulted in you playing in that promotion. Simply having received an email promotion wouldn't entitle you to compensation.

iii) Communications - the emails you have sent through are only those from the last few weeks and appear to only be those with a single operator. One that claims that you have had no activity with them since 2019. In short this is significantly incomplete. We asked to see all of the communications you have had with the operators in question. If you expect us to build a viable case on your behalf you need to provide us with the information that you feel justifies your claim.

We would recommend spending time going through your communications with all the operators in question, going right back to when you requested the relevant exclusion, and putting together a case file of relevant interactions. Records of your deposits to this license that you feel should be refunded are also highly relevant.

iv) Self-exclusions - Whilst it is true that gambling harm related exclusions would be license-wide, that does not necessarily mean that you would be prevented from playing in all situations. For instance, if you changed your registration information away from that used on the excluded account (for instance, using a different email address) that would prevent the operator's automated systems from identifying you.

v) Section 17 (1) of the Player Protection Directive was significantly updated after the issues in question. It would not in its current form have bearing on your claim.

Please review your communication records and put together a complete package of what you want us to review.

Thanks,

CasinoReviews.com Complaints Team

Hi GS08534,

We're following-up on our previous communication - please review your communication records and put together a complete package of what you want us to review.

Thanks,

CasinoReviews.com Complaints Team

Hi,

ii) I find it unacceptable that promotional materials have been sent despite my life-time self-exclusion. This is a serious breach that triggers vulnerable individuals with gambling problems. Could you ask N1 to explain why they did this? Should I report this to the regulatory authority?

iii) I would like to address your assertion regarding the alleged incompleteness of my communications. It is crucial to note that the evidence I have provided, including the email and screenshots, clearly demonstrates that the n1 Interactieve ltd was fully aware of my gambling addiction and the reasons for my self-exclusion. Specifically, the documentation states explicitly that I self-excluded in 2019 due to gambling addiction.

Moreover, I played at 14 casinos under this license, where I frequently set responsible gambling limits and, in many instances, implemented lifetime self-exclusions. These actions, alongside the operators’ acknowledgment of my gambling issues, constitute clear and undeniable indicators of my vulnerability, which should have triggered their obligations under the directive.

I have already submitted ample evidence of these issues, including an email I sent that clearly outlines these facts. I invite you to review the provided screenshots and inquire directly with the casinos involved for further verification.

It is also worth noting that, when I sought clarity or requested specific information from the operators, they either failed to respond or provided incomplete data that did not address my queries. This lack of cooperation not only undermines transparency but also highlights their continued non-compliance with regulatory obligations.

I trust this provides sufficient clarification and reiterates the strength of my case

Iv) I used the same details. The same information and email address.

v) While it is true that Section 17(1) was updated in 2023, the obligation to detect and prevent problem gambling has been in place before 2019. The updates in 2023, such as the addition of “markers of harm,” did not introduce new responsibilities but rather clarified and expanded on existing requirements. N1 Interactive Ltd. was already required to implement tools, monitoring systems, and procedures to identify and address problem gambling during the period in question. The failure to meet these obligations remains a violation of the directive as it stood at the time. 17/1 (1) B2C licensees shall employ measures to detect, and identify problem gambling, using
analytical tools and, or behaviour monitoring systems with pre-designed and, or evolving
parameters and customer interaction staff for detection of problem gambling.

vi) I have been in contact with N1 Interactive Ltd for months, and my experience with their communication has been inconsistent. While they occasionally provide the information requested, in many cases, they fail to address critical questions. I also suspect that they are not being fully transparent and are withholding information,. Additionally, I do not have all the communication and data on file, as they hold the complete records. Furthermore, one of their casinos has been closed, making it impossible for me to retrieve communication from that source. I asked the dpo, but he could not help.

Communicating with them has proven to be highly challenging. Therefore, I kindly request that any further inquiries be directed to them directly. Thank you for your understanding.

Hi GS08534,

To address your communication in the numbering system that you used:

ii) We are staying that unless you can demonstrate that the emails in question directly led you to lose funds, that these would not entitle you to compensatory relief. You are correc that this may be a breach of license, but that would be a matter for the regulator to describe. If you wish to escalate this element of your claim to the MGA, that is entirely up to you, but it is not something we can assist you with.

iii) As explained on our previous communication section iv) simply having an exclusion present on an account does not give sufficient information to determine how the account should be managed based on the MGA licensing standards.

So far, all you have actually provided is Live Chat conversations from long after the event where the agent confirms that there were restrictions on the account.

Simply having used responsible gambling limits is not sufficient to require the operator to treat your account as if you are addicted. Responsible gambling tools are there to help you to manage your own gambling. They are not a proxy to require the operator to view you as an account that has to be restricted. Otherwise and player that engaged with these tools would end up restricted.

v) The pre-2023 standards were very limited in nature and would require the regulator's review to determine whether they had been met or not.

The reality of this case is that ADR are not required to review cases relating to whether or not a player should have been allowed to play. This is not a transactional issue and as such does not fall under our remit.

On top of this your case vastly exceeds the 12 month time limitation on period since occurrence under which we would ordinarily be willing to review a claim.

In short, where we are engaging with this case at all, we are doing so as a good will gesture.

We are prepared to try and assist you, but that willingness to help is entirely dependent on you taking the time to prepare the evidence we need to make any viable claim. You make clear that you have engaged in substantial email communications with these operators over the years, but have not presented a single piece of evidence dating from the time in question. Instead you are relying solely on Live Chat interactions that have occurred very recently. If you are not prepared to spend the time going back through your communications with the operator/s to collate the information we need, that's fine, but we will be unable to do anything further to assist you and can only direct you to the regulator.

The choice is yours. Let us know how you would like to proceed.

Thanks,

CasinoReviews.com Complaints Team

Hi,

**First of all, I appreciate that you are taking the time to provide detailed assistance.**

**ii)** Thank you for the clarification. The emails certainly had an influence, but whether that influence aligns with the specific proof you are requesting is something I need to investigate further. This is, of course, quite challenging, as the impact of such communications can sometimes take time to manifest. I will review this carefully to assess it properly.

**iii)** This is not about a standard self-exclusion. The casino has confirmed, as you can see, that this is a self-exclusion due to gambling problems. The MGA has clear rules regarding this.

Specifically: _“In the event that a player has been excluded in light of sufficient reasons which indicate that the player may have a gambling problem, […] that player shall be excluded across all brands operated by the B2C licensee, irrespective of whether the brands require separate player registration”_ (Directive-2-of-2018-Pla…).

This has been confirmed multiple times recently. They explicitly stated this in emails and chats. I was even told it is noted in their system: _“We see it from our side and we trust that information.”_

I do not have all past communication in my possession, as I have explained. They cannot provide all contact records either (see my previous message). Additionally, I deleted many emails out of shame for my gambling problems. Communicating with this casino has been very difficult.

You mentioned responsible gambling limits and that their use does not necessarily lead to automatic exclusion from gambling. I completely agree, and I have never claimed otherwise. It is merely one of the indicators.

**v)** If the evidence is not taken seriously by you or the casino, I may consider involving the MGA to review both the submitted evidence and whether the pre-2023 standards were met.

Regarding communication, I was not referring to the past years but rather to the past few months, during which communication has been extremely difficult.

Do you have any idea how long I have been working on this? I have had to email the casinos repeatedly, chat with them, send additional information, and continuously follow up on the status of my requests. It feels like dealing with a company that operates in a very unstructured way, which makes everything so complicated. On top of that, they often avoid my questions and do not take me seriously. I have had to chase them constantly.

I have genuinely made every effort to retrieve information from the past. As mentioned, some information has been provided, but not everything I requested, and what was provided was sometimes incomplete. This involves 14 different casinos, making it impossible for me to piece everything together based on old contact records—especially since not everything was supplied. As I previously explained, I deleted much of it out of shame. I can now only refer to recent evidence.

One way or another, there is hard evidence, even if it was provided recently. Whether it is recent or not is irrelevant—it is still evidence, black and white. I believe the MGA would take this evidence seriously. While I appreciate your responses and information on many points, in this area, you seem to act as an extension of the casino—neither fair nor informative.

I would greatly appreciate your help. Otherwise, I will reach out to the MGA. For someone with a history of gambling addiction, it is incredibly confronting to deal with this repeatedly. It is overwhelming to be treated this way and, after all the effort I have put in, to feel like I am not making any progress. This casino is unprofessional and wasting my time.

It’s not necessarily about the money for me, as the total amount is not particularly high. What matters more is justice and an apology for the problems caused. I was young and deeply unhappy. Gambling had a grip on me, negatively affecting my life and leaving me damaged.

Hi GS08534,

When you have taken the time to review your interactions with the operators in question and want to present a case file to us, feel free to get back in contact. But until such time as you do so we will not be taking any further action on this case.

At this juncture all we can suggest is that you contact the regulator.

Sorry we cannot be of further assistance.

CasinoReviews.com Complaints Team

Sorry, but I take the time to respond, and you refuse to address this. Respond substantively to my comment for once and stop ignoring it over and over again. Disrespectful. I’ve already said that this casino refuses to comply with my request to provide the interactions.

As an example, on the 11th november, I asked one of the casinos the following:

“I am writing to formally request a complete record of all data that you have collected about me. This request includes, but is not limited to:

• All transactions, including deposits and withdrawals

• Details about limits and self-exclusion

• Logs of live chats

• Games played

• All emails sent and received

• Any internal notes and remarks

In accordance with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), I kindly ask you to provide this information at your earliest convenience. Should you need any further information from me to fulfill this request, please feel free to let me know.

Thank you very much for your cooperation.”


Today, I received an email with only bets, personal information, payments, and limits. The rest has been completely ignored. How am I supposed to provide records of past interactions and build a case if I’m not given the necessary information?

Do you think this is acceptable? I’ve provided you with evidence of recent contact. It’s all there in black and white. Why are you ignoring the evidence? Why are you responding in the same way as this party? Am I speaking to the casino or the ADR?

How am I supposed to submit a proper case then!! Enough evidence has been provided. Take action based on the evidence and respond substantively. That is your job. You are just as good at avoiding the facts as the casino itself.

Hi GS08534,

At this juncture you can consider us to be declining your case.

Sorry we cannot assist you further.

CasinoReviews.com Complaints Team

When I ask for clarification, you back out and fail to respond. Very unprofessional. It’s difficult, isn’t it, to respond to facts? Then don’t take on these kinds of cases at all. This casino indicated that through you, I could speak to someone from their organization who oversees the entire group. Can you at least share the contact details of a representative?

Hi GS08534,

We are an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) service, appointed to manage complaints that fall into carefully defined categories against MGA licensees who engage our service. We're not legal representatives of any gambling operator, nor are we a directory for the management team of any operator.

Rather than engaging constructively with this process that we were under no obligation to offer, you've chosen to try to side step making any efforts to gather evidence on your own behalf, and instead have looked to behave antagonistically. As such, we're choosing not to extend further service on a case we were under no obligation to engage in the first place.

As previously directed, we cannot assist you further. You should contact the regulator or engage legal representation and seek redress through the appropriate court systems.

No further posts will be approved on this thread.

CasinoReviews.com Complaints Team

Why am I receiving another email from you? Stop contacting me. I already read your response. You are unable to provide a substantive reply when difficult questions are asked. Then you back out. Very unprofessional.

Hi GS08534,

We're sorry to hear you feel that way but our position has been clearly explained to you, alongside your options.

You will receive notifications any time there is an update to this complaint file. We have just published this compliant report, so you have received a notification.

Thanks,

CasinoReviews.com Complaints Team

This player has made clear that they're not willing to engage any effort to gather evidence on their own behalf, and has chosen to respond antagonistically. As such we will not be engaging with this case.

Dear Casino Reviews (ADR of N1 Interactive Ltd.),

Desperation – that is what I have been driven to because of N1 Interactive Ltd. It is impossible for me to reach anyone who is an actual representative of this organization. I have had individual contact with nearly all casinos, but when it comes to obtaining real answers, communication breaks down. They claim to escalate the matter to a “special department,” though it’s unclear whether they refer to the individual casino or N1 Interactive Ltd. Responses then come through the casino, but these are unhelpful. The so-called special department rarely replies unless I follow up persistently. Each time, I must contact the live chat of individual casinos. After months of getting nowhere, a support agent referred me to you, claiming it was the only way to contact someone regarding the N1 license.

https://www.mga.org.mt/app/uploads/Directive-2-of-2018-Player-Protection-Directive.pdf

I am also not able to call them directly, even though the rules clearly state that providing telephone support is a minimum requirement:

“Part X – Complaints and Disputes. 39. (1)  B2C licensees shall maintain a player support function with sufficient resources to efficiently, competently and effectively interact with players, which for B2C licensees offering games via remote means, shall include at minimum, electronic mail and telephone as channels, whilst B2C licensees operating gaming premises shall, in addition to the above channels, also maintain a designated person within the premises.“

I am leaving this message because I am requesting a refund from N1 Interactive Ltd. Over the years (2018-2021), I have gambled extensively at 14 casinos operating under the same license. I have a gambling addiction, which is also evident from the following pattern:

1. I had set multiple responsible gambling limits at the multiple casinos of this single license
2. The reversal of withdrawals pending the processing at casinos of this single license
3. The amount of deposits at casinos of this single license
4. At multiple casinos of this single license, I requested (lifetime) self-exclusion and was self-excluded.

Yet, I was still able to open accounts and gamble at other casinos under the same license without any issues. During my self-exclusion periods, I also received marketing emails encouraging me to gamble with bonuses. These emails were sent despite my lifetime self-exclusion being in effect at the casinos where i received the emails from. When I told them about that (this year) i received an apology and was removed from their mailing list, the damage was already done.

I am requesting a refund for at least the following casinos of this licensee:

- **Cookiecasino (2020)**
- **Avalon 78 (2020)**
- **Crazyfox (2020)**
- **Winny (2021)**
- **Masonslots (2021)**

I had self-excluded specifically due to gambling problems. Several staff members (see attached) confirmed that my self-exclusion was due to gambling issues.

Could you please investigate this for me? I am seeking clear answers regarding:

- Why the rules I am referring to were violated.
- Why my concerns are not taken seriously and how I can get a refund.

I find it deeply disrespectful that my gambling problem has been exploited in this way. Regulations are in place to protect players, yet under this license, I was given free rein and continuously encouraged to gamble. An apology alone is simply not sufficient.

Despite requesting my data from multiple casinos, I have been ignored or received incomplete data in some cases, generic data. The DPO was helpful most of the time, but I did not get all the data I asked for.

**N1 Interactive Ltd. has failed to comply with critical MGA requirements:**

1. Failure to enforce Self-Exclusion
I had life-time self-excluded from multiple n1 casinos because of a **gambling addiction**. But i was still able to register and gamble across several N1 Interactive Limited casinos operating under the same MGA license using the same personal details. This violates the Player Protection Directive, which mandates that self-exclusion must apply across all brands under the same license when there are indications of a gambling problem.

Specifically, "in the event that a player has been excluded in light of sufficient reasons which indicate that the player may have a gambling problem, [...] that player shall be excluded across all brands operated by the B2C licensee, irrespective of whether the brands require separate player registration"​(Directive-2-of-2018-Pla…).
states:
_"B2C licensees shall have procedures designed to ensure that a player who has opted for a definite or indefinite self-exclusion period cannot gain access to their gaming services."_
The fact that I was able to create new accounts, despite having self-excluded because of gambling problem, demonstrates a failure to prevent this through technical measures, as required by the Directive.
2. Prohibited Marketing Communications
Following my self-exclusion, I continued to receive marketing emails encouraging gambling activities, from casinos where I had previously implemented a lifetime self-exclusion. In these emails, I was actively encouraged to gamble. This directly violates of the Player Protection Directive, which states: "11). No licensee may attempt to induce a player who has requested self-exclusion to continue making use of its gaming service."
This demonstrates a failure to protect vulnerable players and exacerbates gambling harm.
3.

Detecting and identifying problem gambling

17. (1) B2C licensees shall employ measures to detect, and identify problem gambling, using analytical tools and, or behaviour monitoring systems with pre-designed and, or evolving parameters and customer interaction staff for detection of problem gambling. Part VI – Player Activity and Support The criteria taken into consideration by the licensee to meet its obligations in terms of article 17(1) shall be documented and reflected in the policies and procedures of the B2C licensee, and such criteria shall, at a minimum, include: (a) the amount and frequency of deposits and, or wagers; (b) the use of multiple payment methods; (c) the reversal of withdrawals pending the processing there of; (d) communication-based indicators such as increased player complaints and bonus requests; and (e) use of responsible gaming tools.

Despite these clear rules, N1 Interactive Ltd. failed to act on my gambling problem.

I am seeking accountability for these violations and demand appropriate resolutions, including the requested refunds. This disregard for regulatory requirements and player welfare is unacceptable.

Kind regards,



How things should go:

https://casinoreviews.com/complaints/gslot-self-exclusion

Cookie Casino - Complaint about N1 Interactive Ltd | Violation of MGA Player Protection Directive 

To submit an online gambling complaint, register a new account or log in.

Create account

Log in

Got a complaint about a gambling site?

Casino Review Site Logo

Log out

Account

Title

Complaint Details

Posted By

Disputed amount

Date raised

Date closed

Player’s Complaint

To protect the privacy of our users, all personally identifiable information has been redacted. If you see anything we've missed contact us at complaints@casinoreviews.com.

Player's Complaint

Player Complaint Responses

Complaint Title

This complaint may have been archived. If you are looking for information about your complaint, please contact us at complaints@casinoreviews.com