to what extent, if I may ask? Given, if I understand correctly, they've been made aware of the situation and their stance is quite clear? Unless I understand it wrongly? You offered them an 80% refund and an NDA, so suffice to say they're aware of this situation?
[...]
And let’s leave the refund discussion aside for a second—because even without that, there are way too many unanswered questions.
Here’s one of them:
I might send Roobet an email asking how it was possible that my first account got self-excluded just because I "mentioned" gambling problems in live support chat—
BUT my second account, with the exact same 8-letter name and identical KYC details, was left completely open for me to continue to play and lose a lot more.
By their own Terms of Service, that shouldn’t have happened.
So tell me, how do they explain this? Because in my opinion, that alone is a breach of their own rules.[...]
Did you mention the second account when you ask for the first account to be locked? Or at least reaching them with your second one, to inform them that this too is your account and needs to be closed too? That's a rhetorical question, no need to answer that. I read the opening post carefully.
Well, for that question above, I don't think I need to reach the to get an answer, because I think I have an answer for that, based from an explanation I got for past experience with an almost similar case, about one account excluded and others aren't, although this is from different casino.
Basically, self exclusion doesn't work like magic like when one username being placed into exclusion, all of the alt-accounts will automatically lit in the casino's radar and inter-connected and got excluded altogether. On the opposite, when someone have more than one account and one got excluded while others don't, and the player didn't mention the account to the casino, it actually has a potential of creating a conflicting problem where the exclusion for future account failed to "bite in".
Simplified, their database has two entries, which contradict each other. One said this IP [and/or other points they use to identify a player] should be banned due to self exclusion, yet according to the same database, the IP is good to go, as it was not locked. In fact, that IP just played a baccarat three seconds ago.
The last four sentences are an extra explanation. The answer to your question was the first sentence on paragraph three; without the player telling the casino that they have other accounts prior to submitting one for exclusion, above scenario can happen.