Casino Extreme Review

The player from the US had denied the accusation by the online casino of creating multiple accounts. He had claimed that no one in his household or neighbors had opened an account, and his account had been verified and paid out before. However, after reviewing the evidence provided by the casino, it became clear that an additional account had been associated with the player. As a result, we had concluded that the player had violated the casino's policy of one account per person, and thus, the complaint was rejected. The casino had refunded the player's initial deposit but had refused to pay out the winnings of $350.

The player from Ontario was facing difficulties withdrawing their winnings from an online casino. Even though they had fulfilled all wagering requirements and had a 'real balance' of $550, they could only withdraw $100 due to a max win limit. We had asked the player for further details about the bonus they had activated and asked them to forward all relevant communication between them and the casino. However, the player did not respond to our messages within the provided time frame. Consequently, we were unable to investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Ireland had her winnings voided by Casino Extreme due to a failed verification process. The casino had requested an Irish ID for verification, but the player had only provided a Polish ID, bank statements, and a phone bill. The casino had claimed these documents were insufficient to prove her residence in Ireland, as Poland was a bonus-restricted country on their platform. The player had been asked to provide a selfie with her Irish driver's license, which she stated she had lost. We had advised the player to obtain a new license and any official document confirming her long-term residence in Ireland. However, the casino had raised concerns about the authenticity of the newly provided documents.We ended up rejecting the complaint.

The player from the United States had raised a complaint about the casino's gaming software, claiming it was rigged. She believed that bonuses were predetermined and despite her investment of $2,000, the feature never activated. We had requested her gaming history in Excel format to further investigate the issue. However, despite extending the response time by 7 days, the player did not provide the requested information. Therefore, we were unable to proceed with the investigation and the complaint had been rejected.

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 Kentucky had submitted a withdrawal request less than two weeks before contacting us. Winnings hadn't been obtained up to that day. The casino had claimed that the player's account wasn't verified due to an unsuccessful selfie with ID submission and had offered payout only through Bitcoin. The player had expressed discomfort with the Bitcoin payout method. We had advised the player to take a better quality selfie for verification and consider creating a Bitcoin wallet. Despite several follow-ups, the player hadn't responded, leading us to reject the complaint.

The player from the United States had experienced difficulties with the document verification process at an online casino. During this process, she had lost her balance. The casino later stated that due to the low balance, no verification had been needed. The player compared the experience with other casinos, stating that they had a faster verification process. We had explained the importance and potential duration of the Know Your Customer (KYC) process and advised the player to contact customer support or our forum before playing, if she encountered such delays in the future. The complaint had been closed due to the inability to retrieve the lost funds.

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 the US had deposited $35 in bitcoin to his casino account, but only $14 had appeared in the account. According to the casino, the discrepancy had been due to the cryptocurrency network and not their system. This hadn't been the first time the player felt overcharged. The player had used Cashapp to send the bitcoin and had tried to resolve the issue with the casino. The casino had explained that the value of Bitcoin had increased since the deposit was made and they hadn't taken any fees from player deposits. However, the casino did not cover transaction fees when a player was depositing. The player had not responded to further inquiries, therefore, the complaint was rejected.

The player from Australia had experienced issues withdrawing funds from Casino Extreme. After depositing and playing, the casino had cancelled his withdrawal, refunded most of his deposit, and blocked his account. The player was out approximately 1,050 AUD. We had asked the player if he used a VPN or input 'Australia' in the registration form, to which he denied using a VPN and mentioned he might have put Norfolk Island as his location. However, the player did not confirm his residence on Norfolk Island. Considering the player may have provided incorrect information during registration, we were inclined to reject the complaint as unjustified.

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 the US had encountered a technical issue when he tried to deposit $200 into his online casino account. Even though the funds had been withdrawn from his bank account, they did not reflect in his casino account. The casino had declined to either credit the funds into his account or provide a refund. We had advised the player to contact his payment provider for an investigation and to refrain from making more deposits until the issue was resolved. However, due to the player's lack of response to our inquiries, we had to reject the case. The player still has the option to reopen the complaint in the future.

The player from California appealed the sudden decision to restrict his access to bonuses, while he had two pending complaints against sister casinos. We informed the player that casinos had the right to exclude players from receiving bonuses at any time for any reason. Despite the player's dissatisfaction, we had to reject the complaint due to the casinos' discretion in bonus distribution.

The player from Ontario believes the casino’s 500% deposit bonus is misleading, as it was deducted from their account balance even after fulfilling the bonus requirement. The player finished the requirement and ended with $133, but was told to give up $250.

The player tried to self-exclude and customer support provided her with an email address to send the request to. The account was not blocked even after several attempts to send the request. It finally happened two months later, when she contacted livechat, and lost an additional $1.871, that she was demanding back from the casino. The casino claimed that her request had not reached them.

The player from the United States had won $300 and after fulfilling the playthrough requirements, her balance had been reduced to $50. When she tried to withdraw, the casino demanded document verification and later rejected the withdrawal due to an old account that the player had forgotten. This had been the sixth time the player experienced this issue, making her feel cheated. We had asked the player for more details to fully understand her situation, but unfortunately, she did not respond to our inquiries. Consequently, we were unable to further investigate and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Colorado had issues with game fairness at an online casino, noticing a discrepancy in game performance between using free spins and regular deposits. He believed the games might have been rigged and had collected video evidence to support his claim, requesting a full refund of all deposits. However, we informed him that we needed more concrete evidence, such as a complete gaming history, to build a strong case. Despite extending the response time by 7 days, the player did not provide the requested information. Consequently, we were unable to further investigate his claims and had to reject the complaint.

The player from the United States is experiencing issues with prolonged account verification for withdrawals, stating other casinos complete the process much faster. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

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 the United States won $6,032.55 on a free chip after fulfilling the 30x wagering requirement but is facing difficulties withdrawing this amount as the casino is non-responsive. The player stopped responding to our questions and comments, so we had to reject the complaint.

The player from North Dakota received an email with a bonus. However, when attempting to utilize it, they were informed the coupon doesn't apply to their player class. We ended up closing the complaint.

The player from South Africa is struggling to verify their account for withdrawal purpose and hasn't received a response. Additionally, they have been unable to access the live chat feature on their game. The complaint was closed as the player stopped responding.

The player from the United States recently won over $3000. She was prevented from withdrawing for KYC reasons and while waiting for the process to complete, she continued to play. She believes she unknowingly broke the terms during gameplay causing the casino to block her withdrawal. The player stopped responding to our questions and comments, so we rejected the complaint.

The player from the United States has been waiting over a week for account verification. During this period, they have won multiple times but cannot withdraw their winnings. The complaint was rejected as the player decided to play with his balance and lost everything.

The player from the United States is frustrated with delayed account verification and unresponsive customer service at the casino. We rejected this complaint as the funds have been played down before we could intervene.

The player from Ohio 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 the US has been accused of breaching the maximum allowed bet. The casino confiscated his winnings. The complaint was rejected because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player's requesting a refund of her deposits, as he was supposed to be self excluded. Since the player provided suspicion evidence, we were forced to reject the case with advising to contact the regulatory.

The player from Argentina is experiencing some issues. The player couldn't withdraw his winnings because he played with a sticky bonus and didn't have enough funds after completing the wagering requirements.

The player ''88Hokk88'' complained he couldn't withdraw his winnings from a no deposit bonus due to verification issues. The casino said that player had submitted untrue information and following their terms and conditions the winnings were voided. The casino claimed that player's IP address matched Russia instead of Finland and that he had used another email address to register, which was different from the one used to send documents for verification process.

The player from the US isn’t satisfied with the casino’s services. The player stated that there were a number of issues, including their VIP status being lowered just after a large win. The casino responded and explained the situation was due to some changes to their system and rules. The player was not happy with the explanation but requested that we pursue the matter no further. Consequently, the complaint was rejected.

The player from the US complained about not being allowed to withdraw his bonus winnings and about their deposit not being credited to their gaming account. Later, it became clear that the bonus the player's winnings originated from was sticky, which meant that the amount requested for withdrawal would be reduced by the amount equal to the initial bonus amount. The player's withdrawal request was canceled as the player's bonus balance did not exceed the initial bonus amount. The player's deposit was not credited to the player's account to avoid mixing of balances to which different rules applied. Later, once the player was finished playing with the bonus funds, their deposit was credited to their gaming account. After the situation was explained, the player did not provide any updates regarding the matter. Based on the provided explanations, the player's complaint was rejected as 'Unjustified'.

The player from the United States has been accused of breaching bonus terms by placing bets greater than the allowed ones. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from the US was accused of opening multiple accounts. The casino confiscated her winnings and blocked her account. We ended up rejecting the complaint as the casino provided information supporting its claims.

The player from Florida has requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. The payment hasn’t been processed yet. The complaint was rejected because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from United States had his withdrawal voided without further explanation. The case was rejected since the casino team explained the whole situation (backed by evidence), and the withdrawal was not in fact voided.

The player from the US had her bonus winnings confiscated after playing a restricted game. We ended up rejecting the complaint because we accept the applied rule in these cases since the casino has fewer ways to limit the winnings from such a bonus.

The player from New Zealand had his winnings cancelled to a rule forbidding a redemption of multiple consecutive Free Bonuses. After a closer examination, we ended up rejecting this complaint as unjustified.

The player from United States is unable to redeem a bonus code for a free chip. We’ve reopened this complaint as per the player’s request. We rejected the complaint in our system because we have assumed that the issue got resolved by 3rd party.

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 Quebec reported that after fulfilling the wagering requirements for a bonus, the casino falsely claimed rule violations and confiscated their winnings of $220. The casino initially cited a breach of terms regarding playing restricted games but later decided to reinstate the player's winnings after assessing the situation. The player's net withdrawable balance of $80.89 was credited back to the account, and the player confirmed acceptance of this resolution. The complaint was marked as resolved by the Complaints Team.

The player from Brazil faced a "Player login restricted" message when attempting to access his Brango Casino account, which contained a significant amount of deposited money and winnings. He requested an explanation and access to his account to resolve the issue. The Complaints Team assisted by facilitating communication with the casino, leading to the player successfully completing the account verification process. As a result, access to the casino account was restored, and the complaint was marked as resolved.

The player from Massachusetts encountered issues withdrawing winnings, as the casino claimed a violation of terms for playing a progressive slot, which had not been clearly labeled. Despite following the guidelines, the player’s cashout of $2,558.11 was rejected, and only the initial deposit was returned. The player felt entitled to the winnings due to unclear game classifications. The Complaints Team acknowledged the player's concerns but noted that the casino's terms had been agreed upon during signup. A resolution was reached when the casino offered a $150 chip as compensation, which the player accepted. The complaint was marked as resolved.

The player from Texas had requested a withdrawal prior to submitting their complaint. Unfortunately, their winnings had not been received yet. The issue was resolved after the player received the payment from the casino. The Complaints Team marked the complaint as 'resolved' following confirmation of the payment.

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 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.

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 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 Arizona faced issues with a recent deposit to the casino that had not been credited to his account for over 12 hours. The issue was resolved when the player confirmed that the funds had arrived in his wallet. The complaint was marked as 'resolved', and the player was encouraged to reach out for future assistance if needed.

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'.