BitStarz Casino Review

The player from Norway had won 6,000€ after making three deposits but faced withdrawal issues due to the casino claiming a rule violation. After submitting multiple verification documents, including selfies and proof of income, the player received an email stating that his winnings had been confiscated. The Complaints Team intervened and negotiated with BitStarz Casino, which ultimately agreed to reinstate the player's balance as an exception. The player's request for two payments of 1,000€ each was pending, and the complaint remained open until the withdrawals were confirmed successful. Eventually, the player received the funds, and the complaint was marked as resolved.

The player from Japan had their account closed and winnings confiscated after they met the bonus conditions and attempted to withdraw. The casino claimed that multiple accounts had used the bonus from the same IP address, which the player denied. The Complaints Team was unable to investigate further due to the player's lack of response to requests for additional information. As a result, the complaint was rejected.

The player from Brazil won 800 Brazilian reals from a bonus and attempted to transfer the amount. The casino blocked the transfer, deducted 500 reals, and only credited 300 reals to the player's account.

The player from Germany had turned €20 into nearly €200 but faced issues withdrawing due to repeated document verification requests. The casino confiscated the winnings, leaving only the original €20. The player's account was then locked, preventing both withdrawals and further play. We concluded that the player had violated the casino's terms by using a third party's payment method, which led to the confiscation of the winnings. Consequently, the complaint was closed.

The player from Russia won $1350 at BitStarz Casino but encountered multiple verification requests, including a selfie with the house where he was registered, obstructing his withdrawal. He could not withdraw funds until he traveled to the city of registration. The complaint was rejected due to the player's failure to provide the required documents and suspicious activity on his account.

The player from Brazil had their account suspended and was unable to contact support. He was unable to play or make deposits and lost over R$ 2,000.00 without receiving the expected free spins. The chat support was unavailable, and his message remained unanswered. He wanted to know the reason for the account suspension. The issue remained unresolved as we were unable to investigate further due to the player's lack of response to our messages and questions. Consequently, the complaint was rejected.

The player from India had their account closed by Bitstarz Casino after recently winning some money. The player sought to reclaim their winnings. Initially, the player faced a lack of communication and refusal from the casino regarding the withdrawal of $12,000. After submitting a complaint, the issue was resolved, and the player successfully received the withdrawal. The complaint was marked as resolved by the Complaints Team.

The player from Norway had won using a bonus at Bitstarz, met the rollover, and then had the winnings confiscated due to alleged linked accounts. The player claimed no prior account existed and sought clarification on the situation. After reviewing the case and receiving supporting evidence from the casino, the Complaints Team negotiated with the casino. The casino agreed to pay the player, and the player's balance was corrected. The player successfully withdrew the funds, and the complaint was resolved.

A player from the UK deposited money several times into the casino but did not receive any payouts. The player also complained about rude customer service and wanted their money back. We requested additional information from the player to investigate the issue, but the player did not respond. As a result, the complaint was rejected due to lack of response.

The player from Australia made a transaction on 6th May 2024 that was subsequently cancelled by Bitstarz. The funds were taken from their bank account but never arrived at the Bitstarz account. They did not receive a refund nor an adequate response from customer service. Despite multiple requests, the player failed to provide complete bank statements and sufficient evidence. Consequently, the complaint was rejected due to the player's lack of cooperation.

The player from Switzerland had two accounts at Bitstarz. Under the first account, he had communicated concerns about a gambling addiction and implemented a self-exclusion period. After a name change and some time, he had been able to register and verify a second account, which resulted in significant losses. He was then seeking a resolution with the casino. However, upon investigation, we discovered that the player had used different identity information for the second account, making it difficult for the casino to detect the duplicate account. Therefore, we did not find the casino at fault for the player's losses and had rejected the complaint. We advised the player to request self-exclusion on the second account.

The player from Canada had faced a problem with Bitstarz, as the casino had refused to verify his deposit for withdrawal. This issue arose due to his bank statements only displaying the last six digits of his account number, in line with privacy and fraud prevention policies. Despite fulfilling all other verification requirements, the casino had not accepted his documents. The player had had numerous interactions with customer support without resolution. However, the player had recently requested to put the complaint on hold as he believed he may have resolved the issue with the casino's support team. Following this, we rejected the complaint based on the player's request.

The player from Minnesota had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting her complaint. Her money hadn't been received yet. After the Complaints Team advised her to wait for the standard processing time, the player confirmed that she had received her withdrawal. Consequently, we marked the complaint as 'resolved'.

The player from Ontario had issues withdrawing his winnings from Bitstarz. After he had made several deposits and played through wagering requirements, various verification requests were made, including providing ID, a selfie with ID, and then a selfie with a street sign. The player had completed all requests except the last one, involving a selfie with a street sign, which he found to be unreasonable. We had invited the casino to explain their side of the situation, and they claimed the additional request was due to concerns arising from the player's KYC process. We had advised the player to comply with the casino's request to expedite the verification process. The player had not responded to our advice and the complaint was still unresolved.

The player from Australia was unable to use her preferred deposit method, Visa credit card, as the casino had abruptly restricted this option without providing a reason. The casino then offered only a Bitcoin deposit option and refused to explain their decision. The player had been with the casino for 5 years and was a VIP member, with her account fully verified. Despite her attempts to resolve the issue with the casino, she was only informed that the change was a "management decision". We concluded that the casino had the right to change payment methods and suggested the player either adapt to using cryptocurrency or find a different casino. The complaint was subsequently rejected as there was no violation of any terms on the casino's part.

The player from Italy, who had registered with an incorrect name and address, was unable to withdraw funds due to the ongoing KYC verification process. After the player had provided the necessary documents, we advised them to wait a few working days for the casino to complete the process. However, the player failed to respond to our subsequent messages, which led to the rejection of the case. We were unable to proceed with further investigation or provide potential solutions due to the lack of communication from the player's end.

The player from the United Arab Emirates had issues with account verification due to the address and ZIP code. Despite having provided numerous documents, the casino still mistrusted the information. Furthermore, there was a difficulty in withdrawing his $16,000 winnings. The player also claimed that the casino intentionally delayed his withdrawal, leading him to gamble away his winnings. However, the casino stated that the delay was due to discrepancies in the player's address and ZIP code. In response, we explained to the player that casinos had to adhere to regulatory and internal protocols including Know Your Customer (KYC) and Anti-Money Laundering (AML) checks, which could cause delays. Regrettably, the player's balance was depleted before the issue could be resolved, leading to the rejection of the complaint.

The player from Texas is experiencing a delay with their pending withdrawal of $1919.10 from BitStarz Casino. Despite previous withdrawals being processed in minutes, this request has taken significantly longer. The player later confirmed his withdrawal was processed and the money reached him. We marked the complaint as resolved.

The player from Minnesota had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. The payment hadn't been processed yet. The player claimed that two withdrawal attempts had been declined, and their balance was confiscated without consent. They also mentioned being denied access to their account. The casino had responded, asking for proof of permission to create a new account and verification status. The player insisted that their new account had been verified and that they had permission, but the casino maintained that there was no evidence of verification or permission to open a second account. After reviewing all evidence and correspondence, we determined that the player had violated the casino's terms by opening a second account and claiming bonuses on both accounts without permission. As a result, we had rejected the complaint due to a lack of substantiating evidence for the player's claims.

The player from New Zealand had been unable to withdraw 2.29 Bitcoin from BitStarz.com because the casino had closed his account and confiscated his funds, citing a breach of their terms of service. The player, who had been a long-time 'VIP', also lost potential winnings from a tournament. The casino had not specified the alleged rule breach, but the player had admitted to submitting a fake ID via his assistant, which was considered a fraudulent activity. We had concluded the complaint by rejecting it due to the player's violation of the casino's terms through document forgery.

The player from Ohio had deposited funds to BitStarz and claimed a deposit bonus. After fulfilling the wager requirements, they had managed to win a substantial amount. However, the casino seized their winnings, stating they had violated the T&Cs by placing bets over the maximum limit per spin. The player had argued that the casino's system should have prevented such bets. We had requested the player's game history for further investigation. However, due to the lack of response from the player, we were unable to proceed with the investigation and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Denmark had an issue with Bitstarz Casino. He had won 375 Euro but was denied withdrawal due to alleged technical issues. When he had insisted on withdrawal and suggested closure of his account, the casino had closed his account and retained around 600 Euro total from it, leaving him unable to log in. The player then let us know that the casino had reopened the account. The player continued to play with the remaining funds, and then managed to accumulate a win of EUR 5000, only to later have the account blocked again due to a breach of the maximum bet rule. After a series of discussions and clarifications, the casino had agreed to honor the player's winnings as the majority of the bet had been made with real funds. The confiscated amount of 3861.04 Euro was returned to the player's account. The player had confirmed the receipt of his winnings and considered the matter resolved.

The player from Australia had reported a win while playing "Pho Sho", a Betsoft game, but it was not recognized as a win by the casino. When addressed, the issue had been dismissed by the casino's agent. We had reached out to the player for additional information and extended the response time frame by 7 days. However, the player did not respond to our inquiries within the given time frame. As a result, we could not proceed with the investigation and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Canada had faced a prolonged verification process at BitStarz after a significant deposit and win. He had provided various documents for verification, including a driver's license, utility bill, and location-specific pictures. However, the casino had deemed these documents as 'obviously edited' and had confiscated the player's balance without further explanation. The player's account access had subsequently been suspended. We had involved BitStarz in the conversation and they had provided proof supporting their actions. After reviewing the evidence, we concluded that the player's complaint had been invalid due to the use of edited documents. The player's complaint was rejected and he was advised to use genuine documentation for future verification processes.

The player from Washington had encountered an issue with free spin bonuses at an online casino. He had followed the instructions to claim these bonuses, but despite successful deposits and fulfilling the conditions, he hadn't received credits for one of the bonus codes. He had had repeated discussions with the casino's support team and had even sent an email to the head of the casino, but the issue remained unresolved. Upon reviewing the provided information, we found that the bonus had been a no-deposit bonus offered by a third party, not the casino in question. We had advised the player to double-check each promo code with the casino's support for eligibility. As we couldn't penalize the casino for not granting a third-party bonus, the complaint had been rejected.

The player from Canada had created an account with Bitstarz but encountered issues during the verification process due to initially providing incorrect profile information. Despite attempts to correct the information and upload all required documents, including a selfie with their ID, the account remained unverified. We found that the player's use of inaccurate information when creating the profile was against the casino's Terms and Conditions. As such, we were unable to assist the player in resolving the issue, leading to the rejection of their complaint.

The player from Canada had the e-transfer option removed from his account after making multiple withdrawals in a single day. The casino had suggested that this decision was made by the head office. Casino support had been unresponsive to the player's inquiries, and the player was not comfortable using Bitcoin. The player had provided transcripts of his communication with the casino, where it was suggested that he was a "hard learner" for making multiple withdrawals. We had explained that casinos have the right to modify available payment methods and had suggested the player to consider other platforms if he was not satisfied. The complaint had been closed due to lack of further assistance required by the player.

The player from Canada had experienced an issue with a casino promotional offer. Despite having entered the code 'Nick200' for 200 additional free spins during registration, the spins were not credited. The player insisted that 'Nick200' was an alternate welcome bonus, not a stacked bonus. We had asked for additional information, such as the promotional offer email and bonus history, to investigate further. However, the player did not respond to our requests, which led us to reject the complaint due to lack of communication.

The player from Australia was struggling to withdraw the money owed to him by Bitstarz casino. Despite having been verified and having provided all necessary information, including bank cards, Bitstarz still required information from an old card that was used for deposits months ago. The player provided all necessary documentation and argued that the casino was intentionally withholding his funds. We intervened and communicated with both the player and the casino. Eventually, the player informed us that Bitstarz had agreed to pay him the sum of $18000, which he was waiting to be credited to his account. However, without a final confirmation from the player, we were forced to reject the complaint, with the option for the player to reopen it at any time.

The player from California signed up to Bitstarz and won around $2000 after depositing $147. The casino, however, cancelled the withdrawal, claiming a link was found between the player’s account and another account. The player insists on being a first-time player. The casino has provided us with evidence of multiple accounts, therefore we have rejected the complaint.

The player from Ireland had faced a delay in his withdrawal of $20,000 from an online casino. Despite having provided multiple documents for identity verification, including a passport photo, utility bill, and picture with a newspaper, the casino had kept requesting additional verification. Eventually, the casino disabled the player's account without explanation. After reviewing the case and information provided by the casino team, we had concluded that the player had attempted to commit serious fraud. The player had been advised to file an official complaint with the casino's licensing authority if he disagreed with our decision.

The player from Brazil had reported continuous losses on the Pachinko game at BitStarz Casino, amounting to 8,000 Brazilian Real. He accused that the game had been rigged without any chance of winning. Furthermore, he had an unresolved issue of a 500 Real deposit that was not credited to his account. We asked the player for additional information regarding the misplaced deposit and extended the complaint's resolution time twice. However, due to the player's lack of response to our inquiries, we were unable to proceed with the investigation or provide potential solutions. The complaint was rejected as a result.

The player from Canada had had her account closed after she won a substantial amount. The casino had justified this action by citing a violation of their terms that specified 'one account per household/name/address/IP address/device.' The Complaints Team had attempted to reach out to the player for more information and had extended the response time by 7 days. However, due to the player's lack of response, the team had been unable to proceed with the investigation, leading to the rejection of the complaint.

The player from Germany, who had been a long-term user of the casino, reported that his usual deposit methods (Mastercard, MiFinity, Skrill) had suddenly become unavailable, leaving only cryptocurrency options. He had also mentioned receiving generic responses from customer support without any explanation. We attempted to investigate the issue, asking the player for more details and extending the complaint response time. However, due to the player's lack of response, we were unable to proceed with the investigation and had to reject the complaint.

The player from the United States had experienced issues depositing funds via the Ethereum network at an online casino. Despite the transaction hash having suggested the transfer was successful, the casino had denied receiving the funds, leading the player to suspect misconduct in the casino's accounting department and demand a return of her deposit. Upon our advice, the player had contacted her payment provider for an investigation. Subsequently, the issue had been resolved. The player had expressed gratitude for our involvement and the complaint had been marked as 'resolved'.

The player from Malta had faced issues with withdrawing his winnings due to complications in address verification. Despite having submitted a government document and bank statement, the casino had requested additional documents. Later, the issue had been successfully resolved and the player had expressed gratitude for the assistance received.

An Australian player is having issues with a bonus scheme in a casino. Despite having the bonus insurance option active, she did not receive her promised 50% reload bonus on Monday deposits. The casino support blames the player for not contacting them immediately and cites their T&C's clause, yet the player alleges it was due to a system error and demands around $400. The complaint was closed as the player stopped responding.

The player from Andorra had deposited approximately 8,500€ and had won up to 12,900€ in Bitstarz. However, the casino had forfeited his winnings and confiscated 8,900€, leaving only 4,000€. The player had claimed ignorance of the casino's bonus terms, which had limited the maximum bet to 5€ while a bonus was active. He had argued that most of his bets were made with his own money, not the bonus. We had explained that once a bonus was activated, all bets had to adhere to the bonus rules, regardless of the source of the funds. Despite the player's insistence, we found ourselves unable to challenge the casino due to the player's admission of exceeding the bet limit during bonus wagering. The complaint was ultimately rejected.

The player from Japan had $6,075 confiscated from their BitStarz Casino account due to alleged duplicate registration. Casino has provided evidence that the player has taken the bonus from the same IP as a previous player which is prohibited by the terms and conditions, therefore we hav erejected the complaint.

The player from El Salvador has had problems withdrawing money despite having an already verified account. The casino is demanding a billing statement for a debit card, which is not possible as the player explains. After opening a complaint player has successfully passed the verification and received their winnings.

The player from Ireland had been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, her payout had not been received yet. The Complaints Team had advised her that withdrawal processing could take up to 14 days and could be delayed due to pending KYC verification or high volume of withdrawal requests. The team had extended the response time by 7 days for the player, however, as the player failed to respond to the team's messages, the complaint was eventually rejected.

The player from the United States received a problematic bonus. After winning over a thousand on a slot, and fulfilling the bonus playthrough requirements, the winnings were voided. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Washington had her account blocked and suspended by BitStarz after winning, with the casino alleging multiple accounts. The player argues this is due to multiple individuals using the same online gambling sites within their residence and disputes the allegations. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

A player from Trinidad and Tobago won 100000 USD at Bitstarz casino, but his winnings were confiscated and he was promised a refund of his deposit. After gathering more information we were forced to reject the complaint as unjustified.

The player from the United States had faced an issue with his account being hacked and multiple accounts being created under his name. The player claimed that he had lost access to his original account and email, and with the assistance of the casino's customer support, he had deleted this account and created a new one. He later won a significant amount of Bitcoin, which the casino refused to pay out, citing the player's violation of their 'one account per player' rule. The player disputed this, stating that he was merely following the casino's instructions and was not informed that creating a new account would be a violation. However, due to lack of supporting evidence from the player, the complaint was rejected. The player had not provided any correspondence that could substantiate his claims, leaving us unable to further assist in resolving the issue.

The player from El Salvador deposited money into BitStarz Casino, but the funds were not credited to their account due to system issues. Customer service advised the player to wait for resolution and declined their request for some credits to play in the meantime. Player’s complaint has been resolved successfully.

The player from California submitted a withdrawal request less than two weeks prior to contacting us. Winnings haven’t been obtained up to this day. The complaint was rejected because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

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.