BitStarz Casino Review

The player from Austria, who suffers from a gambling addiction, didn't receive a Welcome Bonus from the casino, which led to significant losses. He's requested the casino to refund a minimal part of his deposits to help with his debts and undergo therapy. Since the player has not informed the casino about his gambling problem, we had to reject the complaint.

The player from Brazil is facing issues withdrawing funds through pix, even after successfully completing the verification process with the same details. He has unsuccessfully reached out to customer support multiple times for assistance. The player later informed us that he successfully withdrew his winnings and the complaint was closed as resolved.

The player from Singapore wanted to wager the deposit bonus on live Baccarat, however, the software provider stopped offering the game. The issue was eventually resolved as the casino canceled the player's bonus and returned their deposit.

The player from Egypt deposited $250 and ended up with a locked amount of $350 after receiving an unwelcome bonus. The casino requires the player to wager 4K before withdrawal. The player disputes this and wants to withdraw his initial deposit. The player did not respond to our questions, therefore we had to reject his complaint.

The player from Turkey successfully made deposits and won around $3,500. When they initiated a withdrawal request, their account was labeled as a duplicate and all winnings were confiscated, with only the last deposit remaining. The player deems this as unfair. The complaint was rejected as the player stopped responding.

The player from Japan had his account blocked due to accusations of multiple accounts. The casino provided evidence supporting their claims, and showed that the accounts had been used to obtain bonuses multiple times that were intended to be used once per player. Consequently, the complaint was rejected.

The player from Australia had her winnings voided and her account blocked due to unsuccessful KYC verification. We ended up rejecting the complaint because the casino and the player herself provided evidence suggesting that the documents for verification were forged.

The player from Brazil is experiencing difficulties withdrawing his winnings due to ongoing verification. Unfortunately, the player lost his winnings before we could help, therefore, we were forced to reject this complaint.

The player from the United States had his withdrawals sent to the wrong e-wallet address. All the gathered information and details indicate the player requested several withdrawals to an incorrect e-wallet, however, 2 of them were confirmed and successfully processed until he realized the mistake. Although he insists that he did not know about it, and he allegedly did not confirm the confirmation emails of the 2 withdrawals in question, after we repeatedly asked him to provide us with additional evidence, he failed to send it. As the casino informed us, despite such a negative experience, the complainant continues playing in the casino. The complaint was rejected for understandable reasons.

The player from Mexico is experiencing difficulties completing account verification due to incorrect DOB. The complaint was rejected as we did not receive any response from the player regarding our messages and inquiries.

The player from Canada was accused of opening multiple accounts in the casino and her winnings were confiscated. The casino provided evidence that the player had supplied them with documents that were not legitimate. Consequently, the complaint was rejected.

The player from New Zealand believes their winnings were reduced incorrectly. The casino reduced the player's winnings in compliance with the bonus conditions, the problem was that it was not according to the player's expectations, therefore we rejected the complaint.

The player from Denmark has been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, their payout hasn’t been received yet. The player later confirmed that the withdrawal was processed successfully, therefore we marked this complaint as resolved.

The player from Japan has been accused of opening multiple accounts. The casino provided evidence suggesting the player's account may be linked to other accounts. After further review of all of the information, the casino decided to pay the player his winnings, and the complaint was resolved.

The player from the United States is requesting a full deposit refund since her country became a restricted jurisdiction. The casino provided evidence the player played down her balance, therefore we rejected the complaint as unjustified.

The player from Australia provided fake credentials when creating an account. The casino decided to block him. Unfortunately, we are not able to help in a case like this, therefore, we were forced to close the complaint.

The player struggles to verify as the casino is keep requesting new documents. The complaint was rejected because the player was not able to provide the requested video evidence and there has not been any development in over 2 months.

The player from Bangladesh has been blocked without further explanation. The casino responded and stated that the player's account had been involved in fraudulent activities. Sufficient evidence of this was provided, so the complaint was rejected.

The player from Brazil has requested a withdrawal prior to submitting this complaint. Unfortunately, their winnings haven’t been received yet. The complaint was rejected because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Finland requested a self-exclusion prior to creating an account. The casino created and self-excluded a new account instead of her. However, later she created an account using different credentials and requested a deposit refund. Since we believe that this type of self-exclusion is only a goodwill gesture and the player tried to take advantage of the situation, we ended up rejecting the complaint.

The player from Cuba requested a withdrawal, but the casino blocked his account. The casino confiscated the player's winnings and refunded his deposits because he breached the maximum allowed bet. Therefore we closed the complaint.

The player from North Macedonia had his winnings voided and his account blocked due to unsuccessful KYC verification. The casino provided us with sufficient evidence supporting its claims and decision - the player provided the casino with an edited and/or out-of-date document for verification. The casino acted correctly and within its Terms and Conditions. Therefore, the complaint was closed as unjustified.

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

The player from UK played with a free spin bonus, and the casino capped his winnings. Unfortunately, he continued playing with his balance which casino still considered as bonus funds until players request a withdrawal, therefore we were forced to reject this complaint.

The player's winnings were voided due to breach of the bonus terms. We ended up closing the complaint as ‘uncertain case’ because we didn't have enough information to confirm or refute the accusations.

The player from the US is dissatisfied that the casino allowed him to create an account despite the fact he is from a restricted country. Since there were no confiscated funds involved in the process, we decided to reject this complaint.

The player from Costa Rica was able to create multiple new accounts, deposit, and play in the casino despite being self-excluded. Later, it became clear that the player never indicated his personal details in the newly created accounts until after depositing and playing from the accounts, and thus, intentionally never revealed his identity. In one of the accounts, the player managed to win, however, the winnings were confiscated due to the player's breach of the Terms and Conditions. After considering all relevant facts, including the player's breach of the Terms and Conditions by creating multiple accounts as well as the fact that we believe that no errors were made honoring the player's self-exclusion on the casino's side, this case was closed in favor of the casino.

The player from Ukraine was struggling to pass the verification process. They were repeatedly asked to provide new information. Subsequently, the casino decided to verify the player's identity via a Skype call, which the player refused. Our recommendation to the player was to comply with the casino's request. We rejected the complaint because the player stopped responding.

The player from Canada has been accused of opening multiple accounts. Admittedly, another family member had an account in the same casino, using the same device. From the evidence provided by the casino, we were able to see that the issue with multiple accounts was more complex and after all the evidence was investigated, we have rejected this complaint as 'unjustified'.

The player from Australia wanted to withdraw winnings, but access to his account was restricted. Firstly, the player had trouble accessing the website of the casino, however it was quickly resolved with the help of BitStarz representative. In order to withdraw his winnings, the player was asked to provide documents for the verification process. The player was not able to submit proper documents and eventually ceased to respond to our messages and questions, hence we have rejected the complaint.

The player from US had the account blocked due to being from a restricted country. The player has also had multiple accounts. We rejected the complaint because the casino has never confiscated the player's winnings because of being from a restricted country, but because she used multiple accounts.

The player from Turkey had his bonus winnings cancelled due to IP match with other account. The player used a VPN to change a country in order to access the website, because he couldn't open it from his country, therefore we were forced to reject this case.

After being previously self-excluded the player was able to reopen her account, supposedly without any problems. The casino seemingly didn't enforce their responsible gambling policy, which means that the player's account shouldn't have been reopened in the first place and the player lost an unknown large sum of money. The casino disregarded the decision of the mediator representatives and the complaint remained unresolved.

The player from United States has registered an account despite their country was listed between restricted ones. The player stopped responding to our messages and we were forced to reject this complaint.

The player had previously self-excluded from the casino but was still allowed to play. The casino just informed them they would not be liable for the player's losses. After 4 months of play, many deposits, and withdrawals, following one bigger win, the player's account got closed, only deposits were returned. This is not how self-exclusion works and the casino's actions in preventing gambling addiction are found non-compliant.

The player from Canada has been accused of opening multiple accounts and had his winnings from a bonus voided. The complaint was rejected as unjustified. The casino provided sufficient evidence proving the player had in fact breached the Terms and Conditions

The player from the United States has deposited funds by mistake and experiencing difficulties requesting a refund. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions. We’ve reopened this complaint as per the player’s request. We closed the complaint as resolved since both the player and the casino confirmed the transaction was successful.

The player from Australia has requested a withdrawal two weeks ago. The payment was lost somewhere in the system, however, the casino managed to pursue the funds successfully and the player received his money.

The player from Switzerland has been accused of breaching bonus terms by placing a single bet greater than the allowed one. Therefore, the winnings were confiscated. We’ve rejected this complaint as per the player’s explicit request.

The player from Canada has requested a withdrawal. Unfortunately, it has been pending due to ongoing verification. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from China had his winnings from blackjack voided after he played with bonus money generated from bonus spins. The bonus expired before the player managed to meet the wagering requirements. This resulted in money disappearing from his account, however, the casino didn't confiscate anything, therefore we rejected this complaint.

The player from Australia has deposited funds in to his account and tried to redeem a Deposit bonus. Unfortunately, it wasn’t granted. After a closer examination, we rejected this complaint as unjustified.

According to the casino, this player failed their verification because her Russian wasn't good enough and her English was perfect. She said it was her daughter who helped her to file the complaint and they didn't like that. The casino confiscated her winnings of €2,000 and won't change their decision. No other details are available afterward.