[bostik]

Ah, somehow I missed that one. Thanks.

An interesting question to be honest. I'd somehow expect any prosecution to be far too complex for the parties to enjoy court.

Sure, you excluded yourself but then went to the casino after all. Did you do that because addiction caused you to misjudge the risks? Did you go there with the intention of defrauding the casino when you lost money? (Gambling establishments that fail to prevent self-excluded customers will have to refund their losses. And if they do that only after regulators get involved, there will be fines on top.)

Proving the nature of intent for that kind of violation could be very messy indeed.