Cloudbet Casino Review

The player from Germany informed the casino of their gambling addiction but the casino did not immediately lock the account, enabling the player to deposit further 200 euros. The player then requested a refund of this deposit, which was not granted by the casino. The Complaints Team had explained to the player that his account had been closed in a reasonable time, thus he was not eligible for a refund. As a result, the team had decided to reject the complaint due to these reasons.

The player from Spain had submitted the requested verification information 6 days prior but his account was still blocked. He believed the process was taking longer than necessary, compared to other gambling sites. The player had provided an ID card and utility bill as requested by the casino. However, despite our team's efforts to assist him and extend the timer for his response, the player did not provide any further communication. As a result, we couldn't proceed with the investigation and had to reject the complaint due to lack of player's cooperation.

An Austrian player had made a successful deposit and won a bet at Cloudbet Casino. After verifying his account, he had requested a payout but was informed he was under a 'Betting integrity investigation'. It had been delayed since 09/01/2024 and he had received no winnings yet. The player confirmed that his winnings were from sports betting and were achieved without an active bonus. However, we had regretfully informed the player that we lacked the expertise to handle issues related to sports betting, thus we were unable to assist in resolving his complaint.

The player from Argentina was seeking assistance to get the casino to respond to his numerous unanswered emails. He felt ignored by the casino and was concerned about their lack of customer service. He claimed an unknown individual had deposited 964 USDC into an account with his personal information on the casino's platform. Despite his immediate reporting of this incident, he had not received any resolution or communication regarding a refund. He was desperate and his family's well-being was at stake. The casino had blocked his account and hadn't responded to his messages. We clarified that issues related to cybercrimes were beyond our jurisdiction and advised him to contact the police and his bank.

The player from Poland had deposited approximately $24.60 in cryptocurrency using the Polygon network. Despite the platform having listed this as a valid payment method, the deposit hadn't been registered, and the player was informed by support that this form of transaction was unrecognized. The player saw this as a form of theft. After the player had provided the casino with the payment confirmation, the casino agreed to refund the transaction. However, the refund was delayed and the player had to wait for two weeks. We had invited the casino to join the investigation, and they confirmed that the disputed funds had been credited to the player's account. The player confirmed that they had successfully withdrawn the funds, hence we considered this complaint as resolved.

The player from Italy has experienced substantial losses of roughly 100,000 USDC on the 'Here Kitty Kitty' slot by Red Tiger on Cloudbet. Despite attempts to understand the game dynamics from the casino's customer service, the player's concerns remain unaddressed. The player seeks further information on the game, including its specific Return to Player (RTP). We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Spain had repeatedly requested Cloudbet to close his account, but the casino failed to comply, leading to significant financial losses for the player. He was then seeking a refund of $110,000, the amount deposited since his first closure request. The player argued that his multiple self-exclusion attempts were clear signs of his struggle with gambling addiction and that the casino should have recognized these patterns and taken appropriate action. Despite the player's efforts, he felt that his concerns were not adequately addressed by Cloudbet's support. The player also highlighted inconsistencies in Cloudbet's self-exclusion policy and communications, which added to his confusion and frustration. We had advised the player to clearly state the reason for self-exclusion and provided a template for this. However, the player had not confirmed sending such a request to the casino nor provided any evidence that he informed the casino about his gambling problem. Therefore, we could not assist further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Poland reported that their account had been unexpectedly blocked on the grounds of apparent self-exclusion. They denied initiating a permanent self-exclusion, only using a 24-hour self-exclusion feature intermittently. They had contacted support and had been told repeatedly to wait without any resolution for over 2 weeks. However, the player later confirmed that their account had been reinstated and they were able to withdraw their funds. Consequently, we had closed the complaint as 'resolved'.

The player from Argentina had his account blocked due to suspected multiple accounts per household/IP despite living alone. He was informed all his bets have been canceled and approximately 400 USDT are held in his account. We closed the complaint because the issue was related to sports-betting.