Wils Tokyo - Gambling Addiction Issues

[Lorenzoschiera]

Wild Tokyo: gambling addiction disclosed, requests to block betting not acted upon, account closed after the balance was lost, and months without a clear ADR referral

I am publishing the full chronology of my complaint concerning Wild Tokyo, identified in my correspondence as operated by GBL Solutions N.V., licence reference OGL/2024/589/0556.

This concerns both the operator’s response to my explicit disclosure of gambling addiction and its subsequent handling of my complaint. I have retained emails and screenshots supporting the central events.

My outstanding requests are straightforward: a substantive response to the specific issues below and the identity and contact details of the independent Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) provider competent to examine the dispute.

All times below are Italian local time, CEST.

1. 3 August 2026, 16:06 — I disclosed gambling addiction and loss of control

I emailed Wild Tokyo requesting payment of €14,500 remaining in my balance, plus €500 already pending withdrawal. I explicitly stated that I suffered from gambling addiction and could not control my gambling impulses.

For accuracy, this first email asked for administrative closure after my funds reached my bank account. I was concerned about access to my money.

However, five minutes later, I separately and expressly requested an immediate block on gambling.

2. 3 August, 16:11 — I explicitly requested that betting be blocked

In translation from my original Italian email, I wrote:

“For now, I want to request that betting activities be blocked because I am addicted to gambling and do not want to throw away what I have won.”

This is essential to understanding the case. I was asking the operator to stop further betting while the withdrawal of my funds was handled.

My request was therefore not simply to close the account at some future date. The operator had written notice that I was struggling to control my gambling and wanted betting restricted immediately.

3. 3 August, 16:29 — Closure refused because of a pending withdrawal

Wild Tokyo acknowledged my closure request but said it could not fulfil it because I had an active withdrawal.

It relied on clause 7.3, which makes closure conditional on there being no balance and/or no withdrawals being processed.

The same email suggested “Take a Break.” However, support explained that activating this feature would return any pending withdrawal to my account balance, and that I could submit a new withdrawal only after the restriction period ended.

This did not address my request to prevent further gambling while preserving the processing of my withdrawal.

4. 3 August, 16:36–16:37 — Withdrawal limits made an immediate exit impossible

At 16:36, support confirmed these limits for my account:

• €500 per day.
• €500 per 24 hours.
• €8,000 per month.

It also stated that the Financial Department worked Monday to Friday, 09:00–18:00 GMT+3.

At 16:37, I asked whether this meant I would have to wait two months before closing my account because I had approximately €15,000.

The operator therefore knew that its withdrawal limits, combined with the closure condition it was applying, created a prolonged problem for someone who had expressly disclosed gambling addiction.

5. 4–11 August — Repeated verification requests while gambling remained available

On 4 August, the Finance Department requested details of a €400 Apple Pay transaction and a screenshot of the Skrill wallet used for deposits.

On 7 August, it requested the same categories of documents again.

On 10 August, it requested the Skrill screenshot again.

On 11 August at 19:30, support repeated the Skrill request while again refusing closure because a withdrawal was pending.

At 19:33, I replied that I had already supplied the screenshot three times. I also asked whether they understood that I was addicted to gambling and in difficulty.

At 19:41, support acknowledged my frustration about submitting the screenshot again and said verification normally took up to three business days once all requested documents had been supplied and met the requirements.

My earlier understanding from support was approximately 24 hours, subject to delays. The written response on 11 August instead referred to up to three business days after complete and acceptable documentation.

I understand that verification may be necessary. My concern is that verification remained unresolved while gambling remained available, despite my explicit requests for protection. The operator’s records should establish exactly when documents were submitted, reviewed and requested again.

6. The amounts involved

My first email on 3 August recorded €14,500 in the balance and €500 pending withdrawal.

During the period in which I was requesting protection, the balance reached a maximum of approximately €45,000. On 11 August, approximately €15,500 remained.

These are figures from different points in time, not separate losses to be added together. The relevant account history should be examined to establish the balances and gambling activity after my requests.

The central fact is that I sought protection while substantial funds remained, before the remaining balance was lost.

7. 11 August — I again explicitly requested a block on betting

At 19:30, Wild Tokyo again invoked clause 7.3 and said closure could not proceed because of the pending withdrawal. It instructed me to contact support once the withdrawal had been processed.

At 19:55, I replied, in translation:

“So you cannot even block the account from placing bets, to prevent me from continuing to gamble?”

This was another explicit request to separate the restriction of gambling from the processing of funds.

8. 11 August, 21:34 — Both self-exclusion and “Take a Break” were described as cancelling withdrawals

In an email titled “Inquiry,” support told me that activating either “Take a Break” or self-exclusion would:

• Cancel pending withdrawals.
• Return the money to the account balance.
• Prevent access to the account during the restriction.
• Prevent new withdrawal requests until the restriction ended.

Support then recommended completing withdrawals before activating the restriction if I needed my funds.

This is a central part of my complaint. After I had disclosed addiction and asked to stop gambling, I was being told that protection would cancel my pending withdrawal and postpone my ability to request another.

Why was the operator unable to restrict betting while separately handling legitimate payments and any required verification?

9. 12 August — The remaining balance was lost and the account was closed

I subsequently continued gambling and lost the remaining funds.

On 12 August at 07:49, Wild Tokyo emailed confirming closure and expressly identified the reason as “Gambling Addiction.”

At 15:37, I replied objecting that the account was being closed only after I had lost everything, as I had warned could happen. I also stated that I had opened a Casino Guru complaint and intended to contact the licensing authority.

I acknowledge that I placed the bets. My complaint concerns the operator’s response after it received explicit notice of addiction and repeated requests to prevent further gambling.

10. 14–18 August — Formal complaint and rejection based on the Terms and Conditions

On 14 August, I submitted a formal responsible-gambling complaint and refund request.

On 18 August, the Risk Department replied by referring to:

• Clause 1.6, concerning compliance with the Terms and Conditions.
• Clause 2.5, concerning registration declarations and acceptance of the risk of losing money.
• Clause 7.3, concerning balances and pending withdrawals as conditions for closure.
• Clause 10.2, concerning refusal of refunds after deposited funds have been played.

The response expressly confirmed that my account was permanently closed on 12 August when no active balance or withdrawals remained.

The operator itself therefore linked closure to the absence of remaining funds and withdrawals.

The response did not explain why my separate requests to block betting had not resulted in effective protection. It also did not identify an ADR provider or explain how to obtain independent review.

I replied on 18 August explaining that the response did not address the substance of my responsible-gambling complaint.

11. The chargeback and Casino Guru — full disclosure

After the account had been closed and the remaining balance had been lost, I initiated a chargeback relating to a €400 deposit appearing under the descriptor Rencs2. It was accepted.

This happened afterwards, while I was distressed and attempting to recover part of the money. It did not precede my requests for protection.

Casino Guru subsequently closed my complaint because of the chargeback.

I am disclosing this openly and asking that the chronology be respected when assessing the earlier events. Any amount already recovered must be accounted for in any eventual financial resolution. I am not seeking double recovery.

12. Months of being sent from live chat to email, without a substantive answer

The handling of my complaint since then is a separate and continuing concern.

I repeatedly enter live chat and explain that my emails have not produced answers to the outstanding questions. Support tells me that it cannot manage the situation in chat and that I must write by email.

I follow those instructions and send the email. Then I receive no substantive response to the questions raised.

On other occasions, live-chat agents tell me to send an email so that my case can be presented or forwarded to a manager. I send it as instructed.

After approximately two days without a substantive reply, I return to live chat to ask what happened. Instead of receiving an update on the escalation already requested, I am told to send another email so that the matter can be presented to a manager.

The same process starts again:

• Live chat tells me it cannot handle the case.
• I am instructed to email support or submit an email for escalation to a manager.
• I send the email.
• My substantive questions remain unanswered.
• I return to live chat for an update.
• I am instructed to send the email again.

I have also been told that chat agents cannot provide the information I need, cannot obtain a meaningful update from the relevant department, or cannot confirm whether my email has been received. To find out what happened to an email, I am effectively told to send another email.

This is not a functioning escalation process from my perspective. I am repeatedly following the operator’s instructions without obtaining a clear answer, an accountable point of contact or a usable independent dispute-resolution route.

13. Trustpilot responses do not address the specific questions

The public replies I receive on Trustpilot repeatedly invite me to contact the operator by email or refer me back to its final position of 18 August.

But I have already emailed repeatedly. Directing me to that same channel does not resolve the fact that my questions remain unanswered there.

The public replies do not substantively explain:

• Why betting was not blocked after my explicit addiction disclosures.
• Why clause 7.3 was applied without separately addressing protection from further gambling.
• Why self-exclusion was described as cancelling withdrawals and preventing new requests.
• Why the account was closed only after no funds or withdrawals remained.
• Which ADR provider can independently examine the case.

The result is that the operator appears responsive publicly, while the questions underlying the complaint remain unresolved.

14. Another email address received a reply within approximately ten minutes

On 13 November, I wrote to Wild Tokyo from another email address and received a response within approximately ten minutes.

Meanwhile, messages concerning my complaint from my usual address remained unanswered.

I cannot prove the operator’s internal reason for treating these messages differently. However, when another address receives a quick reply while my repeated complaint-related requests go unanswered, it gives me the strong impression that my case is being deliberately avoided.

That concern is reinforced by the repeated public invitations to email, followed by the same lack of substantive engagement when I do so.

I ask Wild Tokyo to explain this difference and, more importantly, answer the outstanding questions.

15. The ADR information I am still requesting

As of 13 November 2026, I have not received a clear, usable answer identifying:

• The ADR provider formally designated for Wild Tokyo.
• Its official contact details.
• The procedure for submitting my dispute.
• The relevant deadlines and eligibility requirements.
• Whether it can examine the responsible-gambling issues raised.

I independently contacted Resolvo but received no response. That does not establish that it is the provider formally appointed for Wild Tokyo.

Repeated references to a “final position” do not explain how I can have that position independently reviewed.

16. Regulatory complaints and legal assessment

I submitted reports and follow-ups to the Curaçao Gaming Authority, including on 10 and 25 September, in October and in November.

On 13 November, I sent a further clarification focusing on the unanswered ADR requests, the application of clause 7.3 and the operator’s responsible-gambling and complaint-handling procedures.

I understand that the CGA’s supervisory role is distinct from deciding my individual financial claim. I have asked it to assess the reported conduct within that role and clarify the independent escalation route available to me.

I have also approached an Italian lawyer specialising in gambling matters for an initial review of the documentation.

What I am asking Wild Tokyo to answer publicly

1. Why did my explicit request on 3 August at 16:11 to block betting because of gambling addiction not result in effective protection?
2. Why was clause 7.3 repeatedly used without addressing my separate request to stop gambling while withdrawals were processed?
3. Why was I told that self-exclusion and “Take a Break” would cancel pending withdrawals and prevent new requests until the restriction ended?
4. Why was I advised to complete withdrawals before activating protection, despite my disclosed loss of control and the applicable withdrawal limits?
5. Why did the Risk Department confirm that closure occurred only once no balance or withdrawals remained?
6. Why does live chat repeatedly tell me to email for managerial escalation, only to tell me to resend the email when I return without an answer?
7. Why do public Trustpilot replies repeatedly direct me to email without addressing the substantive points I raise?
8. Why did another email address receive a reply within approximately ten minutes while requests concerning my complaint remained unanswered?
9. What is the name of the designated ADR provider, and how can I submit this dispute for independent review?

I am seeking an evidence-based assessment of the operator’s conduct and an independent determination of any remedy due. I am not asking for another generic acknowledgement or another instruction to repeat a process I have already followed many times.

I can provide the relevant emails and screenshots, with private identifiers redacted. I ask the operator to preserve the account history, verification and withdrawal logs, support correspondence, internal escalation records and records of its response to my gambling-addiction disclosures.

A substantive response should address these documented events and provide the independent escalation route I have repeatedly requested.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[cocopop3011]

@Lorenzoschiera Thank you for your complaint and sorry to hear you are having issues. I have removed your screenshots for now. If we require these we will ask you later on to re-add them if that's okay. 

Our expert @MatejN will be along from Monday to help you further.