The player from the US had been attempting to verify their account for several weeks by uploading a new selfie as requested by the casino. Despite meeting all requirements and sending the selfie multiple times, the verification remained incomplete, and support had stopped responding. The player was trying to withdraw $50 winnings. We requested the player to provide the selfies for review and attempted to assist by offering suggestions for clearer photos. The casino reiterated the need for a clear and visible selfie. The player continued to face issues, and after multiple attempts and communications, the complaint was ultimately rejected due to the player's lack of response.

The player from the United States faced a 7-week delay in withdrawing $50 won from free spins. Despite numerous emails and sending four verification forms, the casino continued to delay the process, and their contact phone number was non-functional. The complaint was rejected due to the player's lack of response to follow-up questions necessary for further investigation.

The player from Connecticut had submitted KYC verification, expecting it to be completed in 3-5 business days as per the casino's statement. However, it was not completed within that timeframe. The player had provided various documents, including selfies and utility statements, but the casino reported that some were blurred and unreadable. The casino had requested clearer images for both account verification and an email change. Despite multiple requests from the Complaints Team, the player did not respond further, leading to the complaint being rejected due to lack of communication.

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 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 claimed that the casino's 500% deposit bonus was misleading, as it had been deducted from his account balance despite him having fulfilled the bonus requirement. He ended with $133 after fulfilling the requirement but was asked to forfeit $250. The player felt that the conditions of this bonus were not as transparent as those of the 200% and 1000% match bonuses. We clarified that the nature of such bonuses, particularly in North American markets, was generally 'non-cashable' or 'non-withdrawable'. The player's misunderstanding of the bonus conditions led us to reject the complaint.

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 the United States had her bonus winnings cancelled as she had continued playing after completing bonus wagering. The casino maintained that they had acted according to their terms and conditions. Despite acknowledging the player's dissatisfaction, the casino had provided evidence of a previous payment related to the complaint and had offered a $100 free chip as a gesture of goodwill, which the player had declined, wanting a withdrawable option. We had concluded that the casino had followed their terms but recommended that they improve their bonus mechanics to prevent similar issues. The case was closed as unresolved with the status: Against Fair Gambling Codex, and the casino had faced minimal penalties due to their adherence to terms and their commitment to preventing future occurrences of the situation.

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 Canada had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting the complaint. The payment had not been processed yet. The issue was resolved when the player confirmed that the funds had been successfully withdrawn, despite having expressed concerns about hidden rules and communication regarding deposit requirements. We marked the complaint as 'resolved' in our system and encouraged the player to reach out for any future issues.

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.