Permanent gambling-addiction exclusion not implemented at LuckyPays

Complaint summary

On 26 October 2024 at 06:21:48, I sent an unequivocal permanent exclusion request because of problematic gambling and gambling addiction.

The request expressly stated that all of my accounts should be closed permanently, without any possibility of reopening, and that the exclusion should apply to every relevant brand, subsite, company and licence structure. I did adress this request directly to luckypays.io and 16 other brands.

CoinKings(associated with luckypays) confirmed the closure of my account at 06:24:31, only two minutes and forty-three seconds after the exclusion request had been sent.

The response stated:

> “As per your request, we have closed your account with us.”

The speed of this response establishes that the gambling-addiction notification had been received, read and actively processed almost immediately.

CoinKings response sent through LuckyPays infrastructure

The CoinKings closure confirmation was sent through authenticated LuckyPays email infrastructure.

The message:

* was sent from `[email protected]`;
* used the LuckyPays domain in its technical email routing;
* contained the subject “CoinKings: Account Closed”;
* was signed by CoinKings Support;
* formed part of a support thread handled through the same infrastructure later used for my LuckyPays complaint.

This establishes a direct operational connection between the receipt of the exclusion request, the CoinKings support response and the LuckyPays support environment.

I do not rely on this fact alone to allege that LuckyPays and CoinKings must necessarily be the same legal entity. However, it clearly demonstrates that the exclusion request was known and processed within support infrastructure directly connected with LuckyPays.


LuckyPays remained open despite immediate knowledge of the exclusion

Although the request had been processed for CoinKings within less than three minutes, my LuckyPays account remained accessible.

Deposits and gambling remained possible after the permanent gambling-addiction notification.

On 1 November 2024, I replied to the CoinKings closure thread and expressly stated:

> “Hello my LuckyPays account wasn’t closed, why was I able to deposit.”

Instead of addressing why the exclusion had not been applied to LuckyPays, the support team later responded:

> “Kindly note that we are supporting only CoinKings Casino.”

This response is inconsistent with the documented support and email infrastructure.

The team claimed that it was only responsible for CoinKings even though:

1. the CoinKings closure confirmation was sent from `[email protected]`;

2. the original permanent exclusion request had been received through that LuckyPays address;

3. the request had been processed within less than three minutes;

4. I raised the continued availability of LuckyPays directly within the same support thread;

5. a separate LuckyPays account-closure confirmation was subsequently sent from the same email address and support environment.

The statement that the team only supported CoinKings therefore does not explain why CoinKings support was operating through LuckyPays infrastructure or why the LuckyPays account remained open after the exclusion had already been received and processed.

LuckyPays closed only after the renewed complaint

My LuckyPays account was not closed until 1 November 2024, after I had repeatedly complained that the exclusion had not been implemented and that deposits had remained possible.

LuckyPays then confirmed:

> “As per your request, we have closed your account with us.”

This was approximately six days after the original permanent gambling-addiction notification.

LuckyPays subsequently rejected a refund on the basis that the deposited funds had already been gambled.

That response does not address the actual responsible-gambling failure. The relevant issue is not merely what happened to the deposited funds after they were accepted. The issue is that the deposits should not have been accepted at all after a clear permanent gambling-addiction exclusion had already been received and processed through the connected support infrastructure.

Payment evidence and amount to be determined

My Revolut data contains completed card payments using the merchant descriptor “BitSent” after the exclusion request.

Payments of EUR 210 and EUR 279 were made on 31 October 2024, shortly before I complained that deposits had remained possible at LuckyPays.

The available evidence strongly supports that these payments relate to the relevant casino activity. However, the external banking descriptor alone does not permit a final allocation of every transaction between LuckyPays and any other connected account.

I therefore do not present a fixed final refund amount at this stage.

The exact amount must be determined from records controlled by LuckyPays, CoinKings, the relevant operator and their payment providers, including:



The refund claim should cover the complete verified net loss accepted by LuckyPays after the permanent exclusion request.

Wider group concerns

The present complaint is focused on LuckyPays and the documented CoinKings support connection.

There is also evidence of further failures concerning other brands that received or should have been affected by the same permanent gambling-addiction notification. Deposits or continued account access appear to have remained possible elsewhere after the request.

Those matters may be submitted as separate complaints once the relevant transactions and responsible entities have been fully allocated.

Their existence is nevertheless relevant here because it indicates that the failure at LuckyPays may not have been an isolated account-level mistake. It may reflect a broader failure to distribute and enforce responsible-gambling information across connected brands, support systems or operator structures.

I remain interested in a coordinated group-wide solution. However, the present LuckyPays complaint should first address the directly documented facts:

* the exclusion request was received;
* CoinKings processed it within less than three minutes;
* the response was sent through LuckyPays infrastructure;
* LuckyPays remained open;
* deposits remained possible;
* the support team then claimed that it was only responsible for CoinKings;
* LuckyPays was closed only after a renewed complaint approximately six days later.

Any wider settlement would need to identify all affected accounts and transactions and must not require a waiver of unknown claims before the relevant account and payment records have been disclosed.

Requested resolution

I request that LuckyPays and the responsible operator:

1. acknowledge receipt of the permanent gambling-addiction exclusion request on 26 October 2024;

2. acknowledge that CoinKings processed the request within two minutes and forty-three seconds;

3. explain why a CoinKings support response was sent through authenticated LuckyPays infrastructure;

4. explain why the support team later claimed that it only supported CoinKings;

5. explain why the LuckyPays account remained open after the exclusion request had already been received and processed;

6. disclose the complete LuckyPays account, deposit, withdrawal, wagering and bonus history;


9. disclose how the LuckyPays and CoinKings accounts were linked or separated within the support, CRM, payment and responsible-gambling systems;

10. calculate and refund the complete verified LuckyPays net loss accepted after the exclusion request;

11. preserve all account, payment, support, device, IP, KYC, responsible-gambling and internal audit records;

12. state whether a coordinated review of further related group violations is possible.

The precise refund amount must remain open until the operator discloses the records necessary to calculate it. The absence of a final figure does not undermine the complaint because the decisive account and payment information is under the operator’s control.

I can provide Betpack with the original, unredacted email files for confidential verification, but I do not wish to upload or publish them publicly due to the personal data they contain.

The sum entered is only a placeholder

Thanks for your help!