7Bets.io Casino Review

The player from Japan had used a Welcome Bonus with a x10 wagering requirement. Despite having confirmed all actions with support before playing and consistently monitoring progress, his winnings had been seized, which caused concern. The player had provided evidence of his actions and interactions with the casino's support. We had attempted to contact the casino multiple times without success. The casino operated under the Costa Rica license, which did not provide an option for further escalation of complaints. We had marked the complaint as 'unresolved', which could potentially affect the casino's rating. We had advised the player to choose casinos based on reviews and ratings in the future to avoid similar situations.

The player from the UK had a fully verified casino account and £1,000 in winnings, which they were unable to withdraw due to the removal of withdrawal functions. The player had attempted to withdraw their winnings multiple times via bank transfer and crypto, but all attempts had been unsuccessful. The casino's live chat and email support had not provided a resolution. We sought further communication and evidence from the player to investigate the issue. However, the player did not respond to our inquiries, leading to the rejection of the complaint.

The player from Ukraine had deposited approximately $500 and encountered issues when he tried to withdraw his balance of $609. Despite having submitted all required verification documents, his account had remained unverified and he was unable to access casino features. The player had reported that the casino's support team had been unresponsive and eventually blocked him. The casino justified the account blockage by citing the player's insulting behavior towards their live chat operators. However, we pointed out that according to the casino's own terms, while they had the right to terminate a player's account for such behavior, there was no provision for forfeiting winnings or deposits. Despite our efforts to mediate, the casino did not respond further, leading us to close the complaint as 'unresolved', which was going to negatively impact the casino's rating.

The player from Sweden, who had a gambling addiction, had requested the casino to permanently close his account. Despite this, he had still been able to deposit a total of £200 and sought a refund. The user had claimed that the casino did not respond to his self-exclusion request and refused a refund. The Complaints Team had attempted to mediate, asking both parties for additional information and proof. The casino denied having received a self-exclusion request and indicated that the user's account could only be closed after identity verification. The Complaints Team concluded that the player's efforts for self-exclusion were insufficient and recommended him to send a properly formulated self-exclusion request to the casino again. The complaint was thus rejected.

The player from the UK, whose account was fully verified, had her withdrawal requests consistently rejected for 3 weeks. Despite efforts to contact the support team through chat and email, the player did not receive a response. The player attempted to resolve the issue with the casino's support, who initially claimed it was a technical glitch and later stated her email was not verified. After verifying her email, her withdrawal requests continued to be cancelled without explanation. Despite our efforts to mediate, the casino did not respond to our inquiries. Consequently, we marked the complaint as 'unresolved', which could have negatively impacted the casino's rating.

The player from the United Kingdom was unable to withdraw winnings of £2500 due to ongoing verification issues and poor communication from the casino. The casino had rejected the player's withdrawal requests seven times and confiscated the winnings, alleging a violation of bonus terms and conditions. The player denied playing a bonus-restricted game as claimed by the casino. Despite our attempts to mediate, the casino maintained its stance and had provided evidence of the player's alleged breach. As we believe that the restricted games should not have been accessible, we marked the complaint as 'unresolved'.

The player from India had approximately 3,000 GBP in his account and had sent all necessary documents for verification, but he had been blocked from placing sports bets. Despite surpassing the 72-hour verification period, he was unable to withdraw his funds or communicate with the online chat team. The player claimed to have fulfilled the wagering requirements of a bonus, but the casino alleged that these were not met, leading to a reduction in his balance. We requested additional information from the player to help resolve the issue, but the player failed to respond. Consequently, we were forced to reject the complaint due to lack of further details.

The player from the United Kingdom had been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, her payout hadn't been received yet. The Complaints Team had explained that withdrawals could take some time to process and advised her to wait at least 14 days before submitting a complaint. They also mentioned they would intervene if her account was verified, her game history checked, her withdrawal approved by the casino, and she still hadn't received her winnings by 14 days. However, due to her lack of response to further communications, we were unable to investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Brazil reported that despite having succeeded in the verification process, the casino refused to payout his earnings, providing daily excuses. The player had never made a successful withdrawal before and had been waiting for over 30 days. His withdrawal requests were cancelled and his account was now frozen with a balance. Despite our team's efforts to mediate, the casino did not respond to the complaint. As a result, we marked the complaint as 'unresolved', which could negatively affect the casino's rating. We advised the player to choose casinos based on their reviews and ratings in the future.

The player from Japan had applied for withdrawal six times in a month, all of which had been rejected. Despite multiple attempts to contact the casino's support, he had received no useful response or further communication. It had been his first withdrawal attempt after being informed by the casino that his KYC verification was complete. The winnings he had tried to withdraw were from a first deposit bonus that had been converted into cash after completing the wagering requirements. We had attempted to mediate by contacting the casino multiple times but received no response. As the casino operated without a valid license and did not refer to any ADR service, we had no authority to appeal to. The complaint was marked as 'unresolved' in our system, which could have negatively affected the casino's rating. We had advised the player to choose casinos based on their reviews and ratings in the future to avoid similar situations.

An Austrian player had been waiting for over a week for the online casino to complete the KYC verification process. The player was suspicious of the casino's practices. The player had provided all requested documents, including a passport, household invoice, selfie, and photo of their credit card. However, the casino had repeatedly cancelled their withdrawal requests without explanation. The casino did not respond to our inquiries regarding the player's issue. Consequently, we marked the complaint as 'unresolved', which might have negatively affected the casino's rating. Despite our efforts, the lack of cooperation from the casino had led to an unsatisfactory resolution for the player. The complaint was closed as unresolved.

The player from the United Kingdom had submitted a withdrawal request less than two weeks before contacting us. Winnings hadn't been obtained up to that day. The player had deposited £300 and won £1,000 through sports betting. However, his withdrawal requests had been consistently rejected by the casino, citing long withdrawal queues. The casino had also suggested he try withdrawing a smaller amount, but even this attempt remained pending. Despite having a fully verified account, the player had not been able to successfully withdraw any winnings. The casino had not responded to our inquiries regarding the issue. Therefore, we marked the complaint as 'unresolved', which would negatively impact the casino's rating. We had advised the player to choose casinos based on their reviews and ratings in the future.

The player from Finland was struggling to have her account closed by the casino despite her reported gambling problem. She had incurred significant losses, and the casino had blocked her from its other platforms. Despite her multiple attempts to contact the casino, she received no response. We tried to mediate the situation by reaching out to the casino, but unfortunately, the casino did not respond to our inquiries either. Consequently, we had to close the complaint as 'unresolved', which negatively impacted the casino's safety index on our website.

The player from Finland had won 800€ at an online casino, but his account had remained unverified one week later despite multiple assurances from the casino. The player had provided all the necessary documents for verification, including his passport, bank statement, and utility bill. However, he had faced continual withdrawal rejections and changes in withdrawal methods from the casino. The player had also claimed he was accused of playing a forbidden game, which was not listed as such in the casino's terms and conditions. Despite our team's efforts to resolve the issue and extend the complaint's resolution timeline, the player had requested to close the complaint. We had respected his decision and closed the complaint as rejected.

The player from the United Kingdom had reported an issue with repeated withdrawal rejections and account blocking at an online casino. He had a balance of £570 and had made several attempts to withdraw this amount. Despite having a fully verified account, the player's withdrawal requests kept getting rejected, and he had been blocked from accessing the casino's live chat feature. The Complaints Team had attempted to gain more insight into the issue, but the player's responses were not sufficient to resolve the issue. The complaint was eventually rejected due to the player's lack of response to further inquiries.

The player from the United Kingdom had been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, their payout hadn’t been received. The player's account was fully verified and they had tried to withdraw multiple times, but the casino had repeatedly cancelled their withdrawals. Despite numerous attempts to contact the casino, the player had received no response. We attempted to contact the casino on behalf of the player, but the casino did not respond. Therefore, the complaint had been marked as 'unresolved'.

The player from the United Kingdom had won £1,561 but struggled with repeated withdrawal rejections even after full verification. Contact with the casino had not resolved the issue, and the option for bank transfer had been removed from the player's account. The player had provided all the necessary information and we had attempted to mediate the issue by inviting the casino to participate in the discussion. Despite extending the complaint's resolution timeframe twice, the casino did not respond. As a result, we were forced to close the complaint as 'unresolved', which could have negatively impacted the casino's safety index on our website.

The player from the United Kingdom had submitted a withdrawal request less than two weeks prior to contacting us. Winnings hadn't been obtained up to that day. The player reported that the casino had promised to refund all her deposits. After our team's intervention, the player confirmed that she had not received the withdrawal, but the casino had refunded all her deposits. The player considered the complaint as resolved.

The player from the United Kingdom had been struggling to withdraw a balance of over 2700 from 7bets casino. Even though her account had been verified, the casino claimed that a required selfie with ID was missing. The player had felt ignored by the casino's support and believed that delay tactics had been used. She also noticed that her balance had been removed without explanation after her account was verified. The casino claimed that her winnings had been confiscated because she had played a "forbidden" game with bonus funds. We contacted the casino for further clarification and recommended that they pay out the disputed winnings, deducting only the winnings made in the restricted game at worst. However, the casino was not able to provide us with relevant information or reconsider its initial decision even within extra timeframes given to them, forcing us to close the complaint as ‘unresolved’.

The player from Germany had experienced KYC issues at the casino where he had won €3,300. After depositing cryptocurrency and wagering the bonus, he had been directed to verify his account, which remained unconfirmed after 3 days. The player's documents had initially been rejected by the casino, prompting the Complaints Team to intervene. The casino then claimed the player had wagered on a restricted game, but agreed not to void his winnings. After a detailed review of the evidence provided by the player and the casino, the Complaints Team had sided with the casino's decision. The player had accepted the decision and agreed to fulfill the remaining wagering requirements to claim his winnings. The complaint had then been marked as resolved.