Brango Casino Review

The player from Minnesota experienced login issues in the casino app after uninstalling and re-installing it. We requested further details from the player to understand the situation better, including her communication with the casino, and the games she played. However, due to the lack of response from the player, the complaint was rejected.

The player from the United States faced issues with withdrawing winnings despite the account having been verified for almost a year and previous withdrawals having been made successfully. The casino requested a video of the player holding his driver's license and a piece of paper with the date and casino name for additional verification, which he claimed to have sent. We asked for confirmation and additional information but did not receive a response from the player. Consequently, the complaint was rejected due to lack of communication from the player.

The player from Florida had sent all requested documents, including a verification deposit, to the casino. However, it had been over a week, yet his documents remained unverified. We had requested the player to provide all relevant communication and documents but received no response. Consequently, the complaint was rejected due to lack of cooperation from the player.

The player from the US had experienced difficulties with a cryptocurrency deposit at an online casino. Despite having paid an extra fee for expedited processing, the deposit had taken 24 hours instead of the promised 2 hours. Moreover, the player had been unable to withdraw their winnings due to their balance being below the casino's minimum withdrawal limit. After the player had communicated their issues, the casino had resolved the problems to the player's satisfaction. The complaint was subsequently marked as 'resolved'.

The player from California had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting his complaint. The payment hadn't been processed yet. The player mentioned that the casino had asked him to deposit $50 before he could withdraw his winnings. He was unsure about this requirement and sought clarification. The Complaints Team had advised him that it was normal for withdrawals to take some time due to KYC verifications or high volume of requests. They also highlighted that most free bonuses had a cashout limit. However, the player failed to respond to further inquiries, resulting in the complaint being rejected due to lack of communication.

The player from Idaho had his account closed by the casino after he submitted documents for verification. The player had claimed that he had won $500 from free bonuses and wanted to withdraw it. However, the casino stated that the player's account did not pass the verification process due to discrepancies between the account information and the ID document provided. Furthermore, the casino had found that the player had created two accounts and had used free promotions on both, which was against their terms and conditions. After reviewing the evidence provided by the casino, we concluded that the casino had acted correctly according to its terms and conditions. Therefore, the player's complaint had been deemed unjustified.

The player from the US had alleged that Brango Casino had manipulated its games to allow wins only in freeplay, where the maximum cashout was low. After making 16 deposits, he had reported a minimal return and demanded a full refund, suspecting the platform of manipulating the win-loss ratio. We had requested additional information, including the player's complete game history, to address the casino regarding their Return to Player (RTP). However, due to the player's lack of response to our inquiries, we were unable to proceed with the investigation or offer potential solutions. The complaint was subsequently rejected, but the player retained the option to reopen it in the future.

The player from the United States had completed the play-through requirements but his withdrawal request had been denied by the online casino. The casino had requested documentation for verification, which the player had contested due to his use of cryptocurrency for depositing. However, we had clarified that KYC procedures were still applicable even with cryptocurrency deposits. The player later confirmed that the casino had paid him, resolving the issue.

The player from the United States had deposited the equivalent of $20 in Litecoin at Brango Casino to activate a birthday bonus. However, the casino had claimed that he had deposited $19.99, making him ineligible for the bonus. The player had sought either a refund of his deposit or the activation of the bonus. After he submitted a complaint, the casino had reached out to the player, apologized for the situation, and added the bonus to his account. This resolution had led to the closure of the complaint.

A long-time player from the United States had experienced rudeness from the customer support team at Brangi Casino. The player also complained about not receiving free spins as part of a social media promotion, despite multiple requests. The issue had persisted over the past year, causing frustration for the player. We explained to the player that we couldn't force the casino to provide specific bonuses or rewards, and that it was up to the casino to determine eligibility. The player understood our position but remained dissatisfied. The complaint had been closed due to our inability to intervene in the casino's decision-making regarding bonuses and rewards.

The player from Oregon had faced issues with a withdrawal request. He had used his $50 cap from a free spins bonus to play more and won $1300. However, when he wanted to withdraw that amount, it was reduced to $50. The casino had explained that the player used a loyalty reward with a max cashout limit of $50. After the player completed the wagering requirements, the system automatically removed the amount above the max cashout limit. The player continued to play and earned more, but his withdrawal request was rejected due to the max cashout limit rule. The player was dissatisfied with the casino's explanation and felt he had been treated unfairly. The Complaints Team had concluded that the casino acted within its terms and conditions and made an effort to inform the player about the bonus rules still being in place after finishing the wagering requirements. The player's complaint was subsequently rejected.

The player from New York, after receiving some free spins and attaining a balance of 497 through a jackpot win, faced issues with withdrawal. The player claimed to have completed all verification steps but stated that no one had reviewed them, which hindered the withdrawal process. Despite our attempts to gather more information on the completed verification process and communication with the casino, the player failed to respond. Consequently, we were unable to investigate further and the complaint was rejected.

The player from Canada had placed a deposit and received a no-rules bonus at Brango Casino. After meeting the wagering requirements, he had won $600. However, his withdrawal request was declined due to an alleged breach of the casino's Terms and Conditions. The casino claimed that the player had violated the terms by playing restricted games. The player contested this, stating that he had only played these games after completing the wagering requirements and that there had been no warnings or pop-ups indicating a breach. The casino provided evidence of a pop-up message that appeared after wagering requirements were met. The player insisted he had never seen such a pop-up. Despite the player's claims, he failed to support them with sufficient evidence, and the casino confirmed that their system had correctly displayed the pop-up message. The complaint was closed as unjustified, with the casino's actions deemed in accordance with its terms and conditions under such circumstances.

The player from Australia had won $190 after completing a playthrough. She had requested a payout, but shortly after, her account was deactivated by the casino. The player suspected that the casino had deactivated her account as soon as she requested her winnings. After reviewing the case, we had reached out to the casino for clarification. The casino had stated that the player's account had not been previously verified, hence they were unaware that she had been playing in their casino. As soon as she made the winnings and requested a payout, the casino declined it and deactivated the account. They also refunded her deposit. The player had expressed dissatisfaction, stating she was not aware Australians were restricted from playing in the casino. However, the casino and our team confirmed that registration from Australia was not possible without using a VPN service. Based on this information, we had to reject the player's complaint.

The player from Pennsylvania had issues with the withdrawal of funds. The amount had been won using 'free no deposit spins,' but was denied due to the need for a 'verification deposit'. After the deposit was made, the casino claimed a violation of progressive games rules to void all winnings, even though the player claimed to have won from a non-progressive game, as per the attached screenshot. The Complaints Team had reviewed the case and extended the timer for the player to respond. After examining the evidence, including the player's game log, the team found that the casino's actions were in line with their terms and conditions, as the winnings were derived from bonus funds. Despite the player's contention, the casino's offer of $50 compensation was deemed reasonable by the team, as the player's balance had dropped below $1, lifting the coupon restrictions, yet the bonus funds remained. The player's failure to respond within the extended timeframe led to the rejection of the complaint.

The player from the US was concerned about potential identity misuse following a dispute with a casino. The casino claimed the player had multiple accounts, however, the player denied this. After investigating, we found that the player's brother had used her device to create an account at the same casino, which constituted a violation of the casino's rules against duplicate accounts. Despite the player's concerns, we were unable to assist further due to this violation. The complaint was subsequently rejected.

The player from Egypt had participated in a promotional offer and after completing the wagering requirements, found that the majority of the winnings were non-withdrawable. Despite a policy indicating crypto depositors were exempt, the casino had asked for verification documents. The player had claimed that the casino was being unresponsive and intentionally hindering his ability to withdraw his winnings. Despite multiple attempts to get more information from the player to resolve the issue, the player failed to respond, leading to the rejection of the complaint.

The player from Colorado had been struggling with the ID verification process for over two months, despite multiple attempts and submissions of identification photos. The player had also reported a lack of response from the casino's support and sought assistance with withdrawing their funds. In response, the Complaints Team had interacted with both the player and the casino. The casino had claimed that the player's provided identification photo did not meet their requirements and that the player had no withdrawable balance at that time. As the player failed to respond to further inquiries from the Complaints Team, we were unable to investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from the US, who had a history of successful withdrawals, had encountered issues when attempting to withdraw winnings from an online casino. The casino had demanded original documents for account re-verification, despite the player's account having already been verified. The player believed the issue had arisen after using a free bonus. The player had provided copies of their driver's license, bank statement, and utility bill, but the casino had insisted on a physical copy of the ID. The player had claimed that their physical ID had been stolen, hence they could only provide a digital copy. The casino, citing security reasons and requirements by their licensor, had refused to accept the digital copy or conduct a verification call as an alternative. The player had ordered a replacement ID but had still been waiting for it to arrive. Ultimately, the complaint had been rejected after the player confirmed that the funds had been spent, indicating that the issue was no longer relevant.

The player from California had submitted a withdrawal request less than two weeks before he contacted us, but hadn't received his winnings yet. After we advised him to be patient, cooperate with the casino, and wait at least 14 days after requesting the withdrawal before submitting a complaint, the player confirmed that his issue had been resolved. We then marked the complaint as 'resolved' in our system.

The player from Andorra contested the casino's account closure due to alleged data mismatch. The casino offered a refund on the deposit but not on his winnings. Despite our efforts to resolve the issue, the player did not respond to our messages and inquiries. Consequently, we were unable to investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Italy had requested a withdrawal prior to submitting this complaint. Unfortunately, his winnings hadn't been received yet. The player had claimed that the casino was refusing his withdrawal due to a non-existent rule about using the same bonus code twice without a deposit in between. We had attempted to mediate the situation by reaching out to the casino and asking for clarification. The casino confirmed that the rules were broken, however, decided to return the winnings to the player. As the player stopped responding, we ended up rejecting the complaint.

The player from Indiana had experienced a delay in account verification and a payout of $50, which had been requested on October 26th, 2023. Despite reaching out daily to the casino, he hadn't received any response. We had explained the importance of the KYC process and asked for details about the documents he had provided. The player later confirmed that the casino had paid him, and we marked the issue as resolved.

The player from Minnesota had trouble withdrawing his winnings from Brango Casino. He claimed that after completing the playthrough with a no rules deposit bonus, the casino confiscated $459 of his winnings when he used the remaining money in live dealer games. The player alleged that the casino was withholding his winnings without a valid explanation. Despite our attempts to communicate and gather more information from him for further investigation, the player did not respond. Therefore, we were unable to proceed with the complaint and it was rejected.

The player from California had complained about his inability to use bonuses at Casino Brango and Casino Extreme, suspecting this to have been a punitive measure after a prior dispute. We had explained that each casino had a different bonus policy and was allowed to decide who was eligible for receiving bonuses. Despite the player's belief that this was a punitive action, we clarified that the casinos could exclude players from receiving bonuses anytime and for any reason. Consequently, we were unable to assist the player in this case and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Texas had met the wagering requirements for their bonus and left a substantial balance. Subsequently, they initiated a withdrawal which was voided by the casino, citing restricted game play as the reason, a violation the player denies having committed.

The player from Ontario had requested a withdrawal but hadn't received his winnings. We had suggested that he waited at least 14 days after requesting the withdrawal before filing a complaint. If his account had been verified, his game history checked, and his withdrawal approved by the casino. The player eventually received the withdrawal, and the complaint had been consequently marked as resolved.

The player from Texas has been attempting to complete the KYC verification for more than a month to withdraw her winnings. The casino's requests for additional documents, slow progress, and contradictory information about withdrawal process have left her unable to access her funds. The complaint was rejected as the player stopped responding.

The player from the United States completed many formalities and requirements for account verification, aiming for cryptocurrency withdrawal. However, the casino declined the withdrawal, and the player’s bonus of $156 was found to be non-withdrawable. After increasing the winnings to $400 and attempting withdrawal, the casino voided the winnings, leaving a balance of $29.99.

The player from Canada had encountered issues with the KYC process at an online casino. Despite having submitted the necessary documents for account verification three weeks prior, he hadn't received any confirmation. The situation had escalated when the casino deducted $130 from his account, leaving only $50, and cancelled his $180 withdrawal request citing verification issues. The casino had stated that only $50 could be withdrawn from bonus winnings. After reviewing the casino's bonus terms and conditions, we had confirmed this rule. The player had eventually accepted this explanation, and the complaint had been marked as resolved.

A player from Colorado complains about dishonest practices at an online casino, experiencing biased gaming and manipulative winning limits. The player threatens legal action demanding a refund of all their deposits and has video evidence to back their accusations.

The player from the United States is trying to upload verification documents for withdrawal but isn't finding any option to do so. Their won amount was also reduced unfairly from $720 to $106. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Texas has been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, their payout hasn’t been received yet. the casino responded and explained that the winnings had been confisctaed due to the player depositing before completing the wagering requirements of an active bonus, and playing with 'mixed funds'. Upon further review, the casino decided to make an exception in this case and return the winnings to the player, as no unfair advantage had been gained on this occasion. Consequently, the complaint was closed as 'resolved'.

The Utah player faced difficulties in withdrawing her winnings because according to the casino, she played restricted games with a bonus. Since the restricted games were played after the bonus was wagered, the bonus conditions should no longer have been applicable. Consequently, the casino ultimately decided to pay the player their legitimate winnings.

The player from California encountered difficulty withdrawing winnings from a bonus play. Despite fulfilling the required playthrough, the casino denied the withdrawal request and removed his winnings without any clear rule breach. We closed the complaint because the player stopped responding.

A player from Texas is facing issues with Brango Casino. After fulfilling a bonus deposit requirement, the player is unable to withdraw the balance, being told the remaining balance is considered a bonus and not available for withdrawal. The complaint was closed as the player stopped responding.

The player from the United States is facing multiple obstacles while attempting to cash out, including verification document issues, unresponsive live chat support, and misleading withdrawal options. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from the United States is experiencing difficulties withdrawing her winnings due to ongoing verification. After the player's account had been successfully verified, the player confirmed receipt of the payment.

The player from the US was experiencing difficulties withdrawing her winnings from the casino. The complainant likely breached the Terms and Conditions valid for the specific bonus that she used. The disputed winnings were obtained from this bonus. We asked the player to provide us with additional details, but the complaint was rejected because the player stopped responding to our messages and questions.

The player from the United States has been accused of opening multiple accounts. After gathering all the necessary information, we decided to close this complaint as unjustified due to breaching the casino's Terms and Conditions - reasonable grounds to believe the player registered and used more than one account in the casino. In the given circumstances, it would be very hard or even impossible to prove that the player did not play with other connected accounts. The casino acted in accordance with its Terms and Conditions.

The player from the United States has been accused of breaking the T&Cs by playing a restricted game while completing bonus wagering. After contacting the casino and their explanation, both parties agreed on a satisfactory solution. The player confirmed the complaint was resolved.

The player from the United States is experiencing difficulties withdrawing her winnings due to ongoing verification. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player struggled to verify his card as the casino was non responsive. After submitting the complaint, the casino got in touch with the player, his card was verified and the winnings were paid out after a month of waiting.

The player from the US experiences difficulties with his bitcoin deposit in the casino. The player confirmed the deposit was credited to his casino account after the casino was given proof of the transaction.

The player from the US had their winnings confiscated after the casino accused him of breaking the bonus terms and conditions. After contacting the casino and their explanation, both parties agreed on a satisfactory solution. Based on the circumstances, we consider the complaint resolved.

The player from Austria has been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, their payout hasn’t been received yet. The complaint was rejected because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from South Africa was experiencing complications verifying the email address and completing account verification. After following the casino's instructions, the withdrawal was completely processed. The complaint is resolved.

The player from United States has been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, their payout hasn’t been received yet. The complaint was closed because the player submitted 2 complaints about the same issue.

The player from New Zealand has requested a withdrawal prior to submitting this complaint. Unfortunately, their winnings haven’t been received yet. Unfortunately, the player lost his winnings before we could help, therefore, we were forced to reject this complaint.

The player from New York has requested a withdrawal prior to submitting this complaint. Unfortunately, winnings have not been received. The player was able to meet the wagering requirements on winnings obtained from free spins. However, the maximum cashout from this bonus was $20, which was lost by playing games shortly after the winnings were converted to the withdrawable balance. Therefore, we consider the complaint unjustified. The casino acted correctly and within its Bonus Terms and Conditions.

The player was convinced that the casino didn't process her withdrawal of $2,490 but had no evidence to prove that. The evidence provided by the casino suggests that the player never won nor requested a withdrawal of $2,490. The complaint was rejected.

The player from Germany is dissatisfied with the verification process. We ended up rejecting the complaint because the player stopped responding and based on the email from the casino, he didn't provide all the necessary documents to finish the verification.

The player from the United States faced issues withdrawing winnings after using a "NO RULES" deposit bonus. Despite having achieved the playthrough requirements, Yabby Casino later voided her winnings, claiming a violation of coupon terms due to playing restricted games. The player expressed frustration over her account balance discrepancies and the lack of communication from the casino. After reviewing the case, the Complaints Team facilitated communication with the casino, which ultimately reinstated the player's winnings, allowing her to successfully withdraw the funds. The issue was then considered resolved.

The player from the United States had requested a $50 withdrawal 6 weeks ago after using a free chip. Despite submitting the required KYC documents, the casino hadn’t processed the withdrawal and had only responded with runaround emails for almost 2 weeks. The player had submitted the necessary documents promptly, but without confirmation from the casino. After the Complaints Team intervened, the player's identity was verified, and the withdrawal was processed successfully. The complaint was marked as resolved.

The player from California tried to withdraw winnings, but the casino claimed they had multiple accounts and locked them out without providing a way to verify. The player shared the household with others who also had accounts but insisted they were not creating multiple accounts. The issue was resolved quickly after the casino verified her account and refunded her winnings.

The player from California had his account closed when he tried to make a withdrawal. The player's winnings of $50 had been accumulated using a free chip. The casino had required verification, which was a new requirement as previous withdrawals had been made without it. The player had sent verification documents, but the casino had closed the account before verification was completed. The casino had cited the reason for closure as 'threats of self-harm' made by the player in emails. The player had apologized for his behavior and expressed a willingness to cooperate. We, the Complaints Team, had requested the casino to clarify the account verification status and reconsider paying the $50 if verification was successful. The casino confirmed that the account would remain closed but agreed to pay the $50 winnings. The player confirmed receipt of the funds, thus resolving the complaint.

The player from Ohio had been blocked from his casino account following a delay in the withdrawal process despite having met the playthrough requirements. Despite multiple attempts, the casino had not responded to his inquiries, wouldn't discuss the issue or return his deposit. The player confirmed that he had previously passed the KYC verification and had been regularly playing and withdrawing funds. He played slots to meet the bonus requirements. After the intervention of the Complaints Team, the casino acknowledged an error on their end, reactivated the player's account, and processed his withdrawal of $621.15. The player confirmed the receipt of his payout, and the complaint was marked as resolved.

The player from the United States had experienced a delay in his account verification process with Yabby Casino, which had lasted for two weeks. He had submitted all the necessary documents, including his ID and a selfie holding his ID. The Complaints Team had intervened by contacting the casino to expedite the process. The casino had responded, confirming that the player's account had been fully verified and his first withdrawal had been processed successfully. The player had confirmed receipt of his payment, and the issue had been marked as resolved.

The player from New York had a problem withdrawing $106.61 from Yabby Casino, the winnings from a $50 deposit. Despite having played through the required playthrough balance, the casino denied the request, stating the player didn't meet the withdrawal requirement. After the Complaints Team explained that the player had used a sticky bonus, which couldn't be withdrawn without sufficient balance according to the casino's terms and conditions, the player understood the situation. The player did not require further assistance, leading us to mark the complaint as resolved.

The player from Colorado had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. The payment hadn't been processed yet. After the player's multiple attempts to communicate with the casino and provide necessary documents, the issue had remained unresolved. However, the player later confirmed that the payout was finally received. We marked the complaint as resolved following the successful payout.

The player from the United States had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks before he submitted this complaint. His money had not been received at that point. The player had been unable to log into his account, even though he had been verified and had withdrawn funds previously. After the Complaints Team had extended the resolution period and suggested that the player contact the casino directly, the player had informed them that the casino had paid him. The delay had been due to the casino's need to verify his identity. The issue had been resolved successfully and the complaint had been marked as 'resolved' by the Complaints Team.

The player from Thailand had faced issues with account verification at an online casino, which had caused a delay in his withdrawal of $103. After he had submitted all required documents for KYC verification, the player was informed by the casino's banking department that the data did not match their account. The player had then forwarded all documents to the Complaints Team. After a thorough review, it had been suggested that the player might need to submit translated versions of his documents. Eventually, the casino had approved the player's account, resolving the issue. The player had expressed satisfaction with the resolution and the complaint had been marked as 'resolved'.

The player from Mexico has been denied his winnings of $1500. Due to the Casino's website being blocked in Mexico, he used a VPN to access and play. The account was closed when the casino noticed the country change and refused to pay out, despite the fact he's a verified customer in their casino group. Since the player used false information in his account, we rejected the complaint. The complaint was reopened at the request of the player. After reviewing the case, the casino decided that they could make an exception for this player as they had been able to match the details at a partner casino. The player then received their payment and the case was resolved.

The player from Mississippi requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. The payment hasn’t been processed yet. The player later confirmed that the withdrawal was processed successfully, therefore we marked this complaint as resolved.

The player from Mississippi is facing issues with cryptocurrency withdrawal. After winning $609 and attempting to withdraw $300, the casino rejected the request, insisting the entire amount needs to be withdrawn. The player has previously been able to withdraw partial amounts and is confused about the sudden change in policy. Player’s complaint has been resolved successfully.

The player from the United States had his account blocked without further explanation. We closed the complaint as resolved after the player's confirmation that their account had been verified and funds successfully withdrawn.

The player from the United States is complaining about the lengthy verification process. A week after submitting the complaint, the player informed us that their account was finally verified and the winnings withdrawn, so we closed the complaint as resolved.

The player from Germany is experiencing difficulties withdrawing their 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 New York has requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. The payment hasn’t been processed yet. The player later confirmed that the withdrawal was processed successfully, therefore we marked this complaint as resolved.

The player from the United States was accused of opening multiple accounts. The casino has informed us that after reviewing the player's issue, all restrictions have been removed from his account. We consider the complaint resolved.

The player from Finland encountered issues withdrawing funds from the casino. They initially faced difficulties due to a misunderstanding regarding the bonus terms, which indicated that winnings from a no deposit free spins bonus were restricted for players from Finland. After investigation, the casino acknowledged the player's entitlement to the winnings since they had claimed the bonus through an email invitation. The issue was resolved when the player's account was verified, and they successfully withdrew their winnings of €50 along with their deposit.

The player from Portugal had deposited €40 into the casino via Skrill, but the casino had not acknowledged the payment or updated his balance. After a period of communication, the casino eventually credited the deposit to his account. The complaint was closed and marked as resolved.

The player from Mexico could not verify his account despite uploading all the required documents over a month earlier. As a result, all withdrawal attempts were rejected, leaving his winnings inaccessible. It was found that the selfie provided was of poor quality, and the player was asked to upload a better one. After multiple attempts, the player uploaded an acceptable selfie, and his account was verified. Subsequently, his withdrawal request was processed successfully, and he received his winnings. The complaint was marked as resolved.

The player from Canada had faced difficulties with his withdrawals at an online casino. After a net win of $2050, his attempts to contact the casino had been ignored, and he had expressed concerns about their customer support and contrasting ratings. We had recommended patience and cooperation with the casino's processes, which can sometimes cause delays. Eventually, the casino had sent the player his winnings, but he remained dissatisfied due to losses he attributed to the casino's inefficiency. The complaint was then marked as resolved.

The player from Brazil had experienced difficulty withdrawing his winnings from an online casino, despite having submitted all necessary verification documents. The casino had promised to resolve the issue within 24 hours, but had failed to do so. The player had made two deposits and used a welcome bonus, and had fulfilled the wagering requirements. Despite this, the casino had continually refused his withdrawal requests. After the player's complaint, the issue had been resolved.

The player from Mississippi was disputing a claim made by the casino that they exceeded the maximum bet amount allowed while playing with a bonus. The player insisted the maximum they bet was 5 dollars and did not believe that they bet 32 dollars as claimed by the casino. The player did not have access to the full game history and aimed to resolve this issue. After reviewing all the provided details from the casino, it was confirmed that the player indeed exceeded the maximum bet, however, it seems it was a one-time and/or unintentional violation. The casino was able and willing to reconsider its original decision and offered the player the reimbursement of the disputed winnings decreased by the sum of the bonus amount since it was not withdrawable, his deposit put into play, and the winnings accumulated from the forbidden bet. The complainant consequently accepted the casino's offer and has already confirmed a successful withdrawal. The complaint is resolved.

The player from the United States was in the middle of a slot game when her phone’s battery died. When she returned to the game, she found out that her winnings were gone. After investigating the issue, we had to wait for a full report from the game provider, but as this takes a lot of time, the casino decided to provide an offer to the player as compensation for the inconvenience, which was accepted by the player. Since both parties were able to reach a consensus and the agreed offer was credited to the player successfully, we consider this complaint to be resolved.

The player from Poland tried to withdraw winnings accumulated with free spins, but the casino accused him of creating multiple accounts. After the player's account had been successfully verified and the winnings reinstated, the player confirmed the case was resolved.

The player from the US had an issue with Casino Extreme after his winnings had been removed due to the casino's claim of multiple registrations from the same IP address. The player had disputed this, stating that he was the only one using his account from his current and previous addresses. After he had provided all the necessary information and evidence, we had contacted the casino to clarify the situation. The casino then requested additional documents from the player, which were provided. After review, the casino had verified the player's account and reimbursed his winnings. The player had also been informed about the industry-standard requirement of a verification deposit for withdrawal of winnings from a no-deposit bonus. The player had made the deposit and was able to redeem his winnings. The player had confirmed the resolution of the issue.

The player from Alberta had his account at Casino Extreme closed due to the casino's allegations of bonus abuse. Although he initially requested the account closure, the player had decided to revisit the casino. Unable to access his old account, he had created a new one and deposited funds. The casino had asked for re-verification, which he completed, but the casino had refused to return his deposit. After a series of communications with our team, the player had resolved the issue on his own. We had expressed our contentment over the successful resolution and reminded him of our constant availability for assistance with any future issues.

The player from Canada had expressed frustration after he had deposited a total of $2050 on three different occasions without any credits to his casino account. He had disputed the casino's claim that they had received the payment but made an error in crediting his account. The player had provided proof and insisted that the casino should have borne the responsibility for any system bug. However, he later informed that the dispute had been settled. We had marked the complaint as resolved and thanked the player for his cooperation.

The player from Arizona experienced promotional issues as Casino Extreme, despite advertising a "fortnightly bonus," hasn't honored it for the month and has not provided clear information regarding the delay. The complaint was resolved as the bonus was credited to the player.

The player from Washington had encountered a deposit error on the casino site where her $35 deposit had been deducted from her card but a JavaScript error occurred. The casino's customer service had not been helpful in resolving the issue. After she contacted her payment provider as suggested by our team, the issue was resolved and the deposit was credited to her casino account. The player had expressed dissatisfaction with the casino's overall service but confirmed that the deposit issue was resolved. We had marked the complaint as resolved in our system.

The player from Manitoba had submitted a withdrawal request less than two weeks before contacting us. Winnings had not been obtained up to that day. After multiple attempts to withdraw his winnings and receiving error messages, the player reported the issue to us. The player later confirmed he finally received his money manually after a few weeks of attempts. The complaint was resolved.

The player from Sweden had won $50 as a no deposit bonus at Limitlesscasino and deposited $30 in litecoin to withdraw his winnings. However, his balance had shown as 'pending' for the last 7 hours, and he had not received any response to multiple emails sent for assistance. The issue was resolved after the player received a response from the casino, allowing him to sort out the withdrawal. The complaint was marked as 'resolved' in the system.

The player from Nevada had been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, their payout had not been received yet. The issue was resolved after the player completed the necessary verification process. Following this, the complaint was marked as 'resolved' by the Complaints Team.

The player from the United States had experienced a delay with the casino's verification process, which had prolonged the timeline for his withdrawal. He had felt that the casino's support was unresponsive and ineffective. After the player had submitted his complaint, we intervened and contacted the casino. The casino had responded that the quality of the documents provided by the player was insufficient for verification. After the player had resubmitted the required documents, his account was successfully verified. He was then able to proceed with his withdrawal. The issue had been resolved to the player's satisfaction.

The player from the US had experienced a delay in his account verification process at an online casino, which had taken two weeks instead of the stated 3-5 days. After his account had been verified, he had encountered issues with cashing out his winnings. However, the situation had been resolved after his communication with the casino and the player had confirmed that his problem was solved. The complaint was subsequently marked as 'resolved' by us.

The player from Virginia had been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, her payout had not been received yet. After the Complaints Team advised her to be patient and wait for at least 14 days after requesting the withdrawal, she confirmed that she had received her winnings. We then marked the complaint as 'resolved'.

The player from California had had a balance dispute with Limitless Casino due to a misunderstanding about the terms of a sticky bonus. The player had believed he had met the wagering requirements and was eligible to withdraw his winnings. However, the casino had claimed the player still owed the bonus amount. The player had also been unhappy about the casino's refusal to verify his documents and imposition of a withdrawal charge. After our team had explained the terms and conditions of the sticky bonus, the player had managed to increase his balance and make a successful withdrawal. The issue had been resolved to the player's satisfaction.

The player from Ontario had expressed frustration due to a delay in her account verification process despite having submitted the necessary documents 5 days prior. However, the issue had been resolved and her account was verified, which enabled her to make a withdrawal. An additional requirement, which was a $10 deposit. The Complaints Team had marked the issue as 'resolved' following the successful resolution.

The player from North Carolina has made several attempts to withdraw her $50.00 from Limitless Casino but keeps getting redirected. Despite following all required steps, including depositing more than the required amount, providing all verification details and contacting several email addresses provided by the casino, she's not received her money.

The player from the United States was facing issues with account access and withdrawal of $100 due to alleged multiple accounts. Despite sending verification documents as requested, there was no update or acknowledgement from the support team, and communication was ceased. Later, after the discussion with the casino, as an exception, its decision was reconsidered, and the casino successfully paid out the disputed winnings to the player's payment method. Basically, once he provided the casino with the requested documents, the payment was processed almost immediately.

The player from Massachusetts had contested a dispute with Limitless Casino. After using a coupon, which restricted games to non-progressive slots, Keno, and Video Poker, the player claimed they had unintentionally violated the casino's Terms and Conditions by playing Black Jack when the game became available. Despite initially approving the withdrawal, the casino had voided the player's $1500 winnings, returning only their $50 deposit due to the violation of terms. After reviewing the case, we had reached out to the casino and they agreed to return the winnings that had been acquired prior to the player starting to play Blackjack, which was restricted by the bonus terms. The total amount of $1,314.38 had been reimbursed to the player's account and was only eligible for withdrawal. The player had confirmed receipt of the funds and requested a payout, marking the resolution of the issue.

The player from Thailand was advised to use VPN due to access issues, which led to a deposit under a USA IP. After winning $1,500, he attempted to update his country for withdrawal but has been denied by the casino. Despite sending required documents, the casino has ceased communication. The casino replied and stated that the player's documents had been found in the casino's spam folder and so had not been seen by the verification team. The documents were reviewed and the player's verification was completed. After some further problems with the player's withdrawal request, the withdrawal was processed and the player received their payment. Consequently, the complaint was closed as 'resolved'.

The player from the United States registered with Limitless Casino and after winning, tried to verify their account to withdraw funds. Despite the assurance of verification within five business days, it has now been three weeks with no progress and repetitive responses from the casino. The issue with verification has been resolved successfully.

The player from Florida deposited bitcoins and was told that their account would be automatically verified. After losing the deposit, they fulfilled the playthrough requirements on 20 Free Spins. However, now the casino is requesting account verification. Player’s complaint has been resolved successfully.

The player from Arizona deposited $198 and claimed a bonus, which initially had a maximum cashout of 10 times the deposit. He won $3200, but the balance reduced to $1980 in line with the initial term. The casino altered this term later to limit cashout to 5 times the deposit. They are now willing to pay him $991, applying the new term retroactively.

The player from the United States has been trying to get verified by Limitless Casino for nearly two months. They have sent the verification form multiple times, followed the customer support's recommendation to provide additional photos, and sent numerous emails, but have not received any response. The issue has been resolved successfully.

The player struggled to withdraw his winnings due ongoing verification. We contacted the casino and received a reply, where they explained that the player needed to make a verification deposit after playing with free spins bonus. The player promised to make one, and later informed us that she successfully received her winnings, so we closed the complaint as resolved.

The player from the United States has requested a withdrawal a few hours prior to submitting this complaint. Simply, winnings haven’t been received yet. Player’s complaint has been resolved successfully.

The player's winnings were voided for breaching the casino terms. After contacting the casino and their explanation, both parties agreed on a satisfactory solution. The player confirmed the complaint was resolved.