You don’t know if it’s relevant or not. We need to see the first email he sent Betfury to close his account to determine if the law is relevant. Of course succeeding correspondence isn’t going to say gambling problem. The original one may mention gambling problem.
We saw the first line of the original one. If it said anything about requesting a self-exclusion, I'm guessing the OP would have included it in his screenshot.
I don’t know why you want to argue this since it’s not some new concept. Other jurisdictions have the same type of laws. Cooling-Off periods and Self-Exclusion isn’t new. So as I said, in essence they are the same.
Now you're changing what we were disagreeing about. I never said anything about a "cooling off period."
The second email means nothing. We need the first. You just learned about the rules today and don’t seem to have an understanding of the rules or how to interpret them so I’ll let it go after this.
The tricky part in this case isn’t closed or self-exclusion, it’s that this case doesn’t have a time period for possible reinstatement.