BetItAll Casino Review

The player from Germany played a bonus up to 9,000 Euros at Betitall Casino. Despite the assurance of no restrictions, he was informed of a violation of the bonus conditions, and the winnings were cut to 800 Euros. After a closer examination, we ended up rejecting this complaint as unjustified.

After self-excluding themselves from www.pledoo.com due to gambling addiction, the player from Germany found they could still register and gamble at www.betitall.com, a sister casino under the same company. They lost €528 and are now seeking a refund due to violation of player protection. After a closer examination, we ended up rejecting this complaint as unjustified.

The player from Austria, who suffers from gambling addiction, complains that the casino he is playing at does not have a valid license from Austria and should reimburse all deposits. Despite informing the casino about his addiction, he is still able to deposit, which he finds irresponsible. Since we do not handle matters related to licensing authorities, we had to reject the complaint. Moreover, the player was banned from our site for his serious health issues and threatening to take legal actions against our employees.

The player from Canada played using a VPN which was against the casino's T&Cs. His winnings were confiscated. The VPN helped the player bypass the country block that was enforced on certain games, by which he gained an unfair advantage. Therefore, we decided to close this complaint in favor of the casino.

The player from Switzerland is experiencing difficulties withdrawing her funds due to limited availability of payment methods. After our intervention, we were able to help the player to get their winnings. The player confirmed they received the funds in the end. The Player’s complaint has been resolved successfully.

The player from Finland had an active self-exclusion in a sister casino due to a gambling problem. He believes that he should have been banned from this casino too. The complaint was rejected because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player 'lolrofl123' from Germany registered at the casino and deposited via Ecopayz. They won €350 and wanted to withdraw it, however, after sending documents requested for verification, the player was accused of having multiple accounts. Their account got blocked and there were no more updates ever since.

The player from Canada is questioning responsible gambling tools. He asked the casino for loss limit which wasn’t activated because the casino is not able to set it. Since such tools are not mandatory, we decided to reject this complaint.

The player from Russia had their account suspended and winnings confiscated due to unsuccessful KYC verification. The player only indicated the name of his region instead of his street and house number when filling out the 'Address' field in their player profile. Our position was that an incorrectly filled out address alone is not a sufficient reason to void winnings. The casino complied with our ruling and initiated additional account verification. The player successfully passed the verification process and received their funds shortly afterwards. The complaint was closed as 'Resolved'.

The player from Germany was dissatisfied with lack of enforcement regarding Responsible Gaming procedures. In the Responsible Gambling section, the casino informed players that it's possible to set deposit and loss limits. This information was unture. The player asked the casino to set the limits to his account, but was informed that the setting the limits was not possible. The casino later removed the irrelevant information and took steps to implement the option to set deposit limits. The complaint was marked as 'rejected' because we considered the incorrect information in the Responsible Gambling section to be more of an inconvenience rather than a serious issue.

The player from Germany had their withdrawal withheld and account blocked due to failed KYC verification. After the casino disclosed an important information regarding their security concern, we concluded this complaint as 'unjustified' and were forced to reject it.

The player from Ukraine had been accused of opening multiple accounts. The complaint was rejected as unjustified. The casino provided sufficient evidence proving the player breached the Terms and Conditions by creating multiple accounts in the casino.

The player from Germany had not received a withdrawal of 1000,-€ which Pledoo Casino claimed they had transferred. The player's bank had rejected the casino's first payment attempt because the casino was not working with a licensed payout partner. The player had provided bank statements as evidence, but the casino had initially refused to acknowledge them. After a series of communications between the player and the casino, the casino confirmed that the withdrawal had been refunded by the player's bank. The funds had been credited back to the player's Pledoo account, and she had been able to initiate a new withdrawal request. Ultimately, the player confirmed that she had received her €1000, resolving the issue.

The player from Switzerland had raised concern over the inability to self-exclude or set limits on his casino account. The casino only offered a 7-day cooling-off period and exhibited poor customer service, failing to respond to emails. The player had already sent an email to the casino requesting self-exclusion, and after the complaint was raised, he received an email confirming the permanent closure of his account and asked for the complaint to be closed. We obliged.

The player from Montenegro claims Pledoo Casino blocked his account and confiscated his winnings of 8,600 Eur after he won, despite him proving his residency. He argues the Casino incorrectly labeled him as a Latvian resident. The casino responded and explained that the player had not provided sufficient documentation to prove their residency in Montenegro. After discussing the case with the casino, it was decided the player should be allowed the opportunity to provide further documents and complete the verification process. Upon doing so, the player received their withdrawal and the complaint was resolved.

The player from Saxony-Anhalt is experiencing issues with two withdrawals of 1000€ each, intended for a Master Card. Despite the account being fully verified and the casino receiving a requested photo of the credit card with a visible CVC, they refuse to process the payment without explanation. The complaint was resolved as the player received his payout.

The player from Greece had their account closed and winnings confiscated after a big win, due to a supposed incorrect surname input during registration. The player insists all provided details were correct, and had previously successfully withdrawn smaller winnings. We closed the complaint as resolved since the casino reconsidered its position and decided to unblock the player's account. This was followed by a successful verification of the player. The player then requested a withdrawal and confirmed receipt of the payment.

The player from Finland requested a withdrawal. The casino noticed a discrepancy between the information in the player's profile and the documents provided for verification. The player explains the discrepancy as a simple typo. The player confirmed the issue was resolved.

The player from Portugal requested their account to be blocked due to losses, but the casino informed them about 250 free spins in a game. After using up the free spins and making a new deposit, the casino unexpectedly blocked the player's account without their confirmation or consent. Player’s complaint has been resolved successfully.

The player from Greece has been struggling for five days to withdraw their money from the casino. The bank rejects their withdrawal request and the customer is advised to use alternative methods such as Neteller and Skrill. Player’s complaint has been resolved successfully.

The player from Bulgaria had his account blocked due to accusations of providing inaccurate personal information. Upon discussing and reviewing the situation with the casino, it was decided that the player gained their winnings fairly and that the missing information could be a genuine mistake. The casino decided to allow the player to verify their address and withdraw their winnings, so the complaint was resolved.

The player from Portugal has made a mistake in his address while registering new account. Unfortunately, the withdrawal is now pending due to incomplete verification. Upon discussing and reviewing the situation with the casino, it was decided that the player gained their winnings fairly and that the missing information could be a genuine mistake. The casino decided to allow the player to verify their address and withdraw their winnings, so the complaint was resolved.

The player from Sweden has submitted a withdrawal request less than two weeks prior to contacting us. Winnings haven’t been obtained up to this day. The player later confirmed that the withdrawal was processed successfully, therefore we marked this complaint as resolved.

The player from Malta requested a withdrawal one week prior to submitting this complaint. It has not been processed yet. The player later confirmed that the withdrawal was processed successfully, therefore we marked this complaint as resolved.

The player from Sweden is experiencing difficulties withdrawing his winnings due to ongoing verification. The player later confirmed that the withdrawal was processed successfully, therefore we marked this complaint as resolved.

The player's request to close his account is ignored for over a month. It seems there was some confusion regarding translation of the player's request and upon re-examining the case the casino decided to return the player's deposit.

The player from Portugal, who was struggling with gambling addiction, had requested self-exclusion from RoySpins online casino. Despite this, the casino had allowed him to create multiple accounts and deposit over 3000€. The player had reported losing all his bets and had continued to receive promotional messages from the casino, despite his self-exclusion. After a prolonged discussion with the casino and the complaints team, the casino had initially refunded 3000€ to the player. The player had insisted that the total loss was 6000€, and after further negotiations, the casino had agreed to refund an additional 1000€. The issue had eventually been resolved, and the player had acknowledged the resolution.

The player from Finland had requested account closure due to a gambling addiction in May 2023. Despite repeated requests, the closure had not been implemented until September 26, 2023, during which the player had lost several thousand euros. The player had stated that he had specified his gambling addiction as the reason for account closure in all his requests. The casino had claimed they did not receive the player's email requesting account closure until September 26, 2023. The player had disputed an amount of 1160 euros, but the casino had agreed to refund only 244 euros, which was the total deposit made after August 3, 2023. The player accepted the partial refund due to insufficient evidence, resulting in the case being marked as resolved.