Consider: if Stake does return any amount, you have just carved out a new niche for people to exploit. What a lovely precedent!
Is that a problem? If they make permanent bans/self-exclusions actually permanent, then there's nothing to exploit.
While it sounds like stake probably never should've unbanned the account -- if we're being realistic had stake not unbanned the account -- I am pretty the OP would've found a way to gamble either at stake on a new account, or at another casino.
Gambling addictions are no joke, I really hope the OP takes it seriously and gets the help he needs.
Agree, Stake controls whether they leave themselves open to exploitation or not.
While your 2nd point is reasonable i dont think it relieves Stake of their responsibility. Maybe they didnt want me gambling somewhere else ?
But ill use an analogy here...
Say you own a bar... and theres a drunk customer, and you keep serving him and serving him, he goes and has an accident of some kind... do you think the defense of "well if i didnt serve him, he would have found another way to drink" would hold up?
She probably doesn't care that much whether you have a gambling addiction or not. Their only concern is that you can continue to deposit as much as possible.
Is there no option on the platform that you can exclude your own so that you can no longer log in and therefore remain excluded via the system for that period?
If Stake did not allow this or did not comply with your request, then they have seriously broken the rules of the gambling license.