IceCasino Review

The player from Hungary had submitted the required documents for KYC but had not received a response or any helpful information regarding the status of his account from the casino. The casino later informed him that multiple accounts were linked to him, which violated their terms and conditions, leading to the option to either block all accounts or void winnings while unlocking the account in dispute. The player was given an extension to respond but did not communicate further, resulting in the rejection of the complaint by the Complaints Team.

The player from Germany faced account closure after requesting a withdrawal of €540 and completing the verification process. The casino demanded unreasonable documents to prove his location on a specific date, which were not mentioned in the terms and conditions, and he was unable to provide them. He requested the payout of his winnings, deeming the casino's actions highly unfair. The issue was resolved when the casino reinstated his account access, allowing him to successfully withdraw his winnings.

The player from Brazil deposited R$20.00 at Ice Casino but did not receive the advertised deposit bonus. After multiple communications with customer support, she was informed that a conflicting bonus required additional deposits for resolution. The issue was resolved when the correct bonus was eventually credited to her account. We marked the complaint as 'resolved' having received confirmation from the player.

The player from Sweden faced issues withdrawing winnings from IceCasino after his account was blocked due to using a VPN during gameplay. Although the player had his account verified, he could not access it and felt unfairly treated after submitting the necessary documents. The Complaints Team intervened, and the casino allowed the player to continue using the service while requesting that he avoid using a VPN in the future. The player was advised to request his withdrawal, and although the complaint was ultimately rejected due to a lack of communication from him, he retained the right to reopen the complaint if needed.

The player from Poland had a blocked, fully verified account with 9079 PLN in funds. The player stated they only played casino games and had never used bonuses. The issue was resolved when the casino unblocked the account after verifying the player's identity and confirming that the call verification had been performed. The player confirmed the resolution and requested to close the complaint.

The player from Greece experienced delays in account verification despite having submitted all clear documents. He suspected that the casino was trying to avoid processing his winnings. The Complaints Team had set an extended timeframe for the casino to complete the verification process and process the withdrawal. However, the case was currently rejected due to the player's lack of response to the team's inquiries, which prevented further investigation. The player retained the option to reopen the complaint in the future.

The player from Portugal was unable to withdraw funds after the casino validated his account. His withdrawal request on July 28, 2024, was refused, and his account was subsequently blocked without explanation. Upon review, it was found that the player had violated the casino's Terms and Conditions by using a VPN, which is prohibited. Consequently, we were unable to assist further.

The player from Poland had requested a withdrawal 2 months ago and had not received the funds. The Complaints Team had attempted to gather more information regarding the issue and had extended the response time for the player to reply. However, due to a lack of communication from the player, the complaint was closed.

The player from Sweden had deposited significant amounts into the casino but repeatedly faced obstacles when trying to withdraw his winnings. He had attempted to withdraw €4,000 but encountered account blocking and cancellation of his request, which was attributed to signs of gambling addiction, despite his claims that he was not addicted. The Complaints Team had facilitated communication with the casino, which ultimately allowed the player to continue using their services after confirming his gambling habits. However, the player expressed dissatisfaction with the handling of his case and the lack of support from the casino. The complaint was eventually rejected due to the player's lack of response to follow-up inquiries.

The player from Austria reported that the casino had unjustly locked his account in the middle of a game during free spins. The casino stated that the player had violated their terms by using a VPN, showing logins from both Austria and Romania. The player provided evidence of his stay in Romania and explained the IP differences due to using different networks. The casino requested proof of network usage and SIM card ownership. After verification, the player’s account was unlocked, and the issue was resolved.

The player from Germany faced withdrawal issues because the casino believed her account belonged to her former roommate. All payments had come from his bank accounts without prior issues. The player's account was blocked, and verification was completed. The casino provided evidence that the player's details matched another account, leading to a duplicate account issue. We determined that the player breached the casino's rules by funding multiple accounts with his bank account. Consequently, the complaint was rejected as we could not compel the casino to overlook this rule violation.

The player from Greece had his account blocked after he requested a withdrawal; the casino claimed he had multiple accounts. The Complaints Team reviewed the case and requested evidence from the casino, which was subsequently provided. The evidence confirmed the casino's claims, leading to the conclusion that the casino acted in compliance with its terms and conditions. As a result, the Complaints Team was unable to assist further in this matter.

The player from Ireland faced difficulties withdrawing over 100,000 euros in winnings from a casino. She had received only 7,000 euros and encountered continuous delays and cancellations with no clear timeline or support. The player sought to enforce the casino's terms for negotiated withdrawals and receive the remaining winnings. We determined that the casino was processing withdrawals according to their terms and conditions, specifically allowing up to 5,000 euros per month. Since the player confirmed receiving installments regularly, the complaint was closed with a 'resolved' status.

The player from Austria had been waiting for a withdrawal since June 14, which had not yet been processed. Despite repeated requests, they were consistently told to wait. It had been one month since the withdrawal request. The player confirmed that he was verified and that the winnings were accumulated with real money, not a bonus. The issue was resolved when the player received his money.

The player from Romania had his account blocked after verifying KYC, despite only having one account. The casino claimed he had violated terms due to multiple accounts, but he explained that a family member had used the same phone for their account. After reviewing the case, it was determined that using the same device for multiple accounts was considered a violation of the casino's terms. Consequently, the complaint was rejected.

The player from Romania had opened an account to use a no-deposit bonus and won 182 lei. After using a friend's card to deposit 31 lei needed for withdrawal, the casino closed the account and refused to return the deposit or winnings. The casino stated that unlocking the account would result in the confiscation of funds. We explained that using a third-party payment method violated the casino's terms and conditions and that the casino had the right to withhold funds. The complaint was rejected as the player's actions breached the casino's rules.

The player from Greece tried to close his account at the casino, but the casino ignored his requests. As a result, he lost money. The Complaints Team explained that without supporting evidence of the player's self-exclusion request, the complaint could not be pursued. The player was advised to provide clear communication and evidence in the future. The complaint was rejected due to the lack of proof.

The player from Poland had deposited 2000 PLN at Ice Casino using a bonus and won 4000 PLN. However, her withdrawal was locked, and she was informed that her account was under review. Subsequently, her account was permanently blocked, and customer support stated she couldn't get her winnings back. She sought to recover her winnings and quit gambling. We reviewed the evidence provided by the casino and concluded that the player had breached the casino's terms and conditions by using an unfair practice to accumulate winnings. Consequently, the complaint was rejected as unjustified.

The player from Poland had his account banned and his funds confiscated. He was no longer interested in playing and sought a refund of his money. The player claimed he had completed the KYC verification and met the wagering requirements for his bonus. However, the casino accused him of bonus abuse and provided evidence to support their decision. Based on the evidence, we determined that the casino's actions were justified, leading to the rejection of the player's complaint.

The player from Greece had won 4,000 euros from Ice Casino, but the casino rejected her withdrawal request and asked for additional documents. After she submitted the additional documents, the casino blocked her account without warning. The player sought help to resolve this issue. The casino stated that the account was blocked due to multi-accounting, citing a second account under her name. Despite the player’s claim that the second account was created by her son without her knowledge, it was confirmed that the casino's terms and conditions had been violated, resulting in the complaint being rejected.

The player from Portugal was concerned about a pending withdrawal of 200€ and doubted the casino would pay based on negative reviews. She requested information about the game operator. The player reported multiple failed withdrawal attempts despite account verification. The issue was resolved when the casino confirmed a 50€ payment via Skrill after verifying the player's details.

The player from Poland had their account blocked by Ice Casino without any provided reason. After submitting additional documents, they were informed that they could no longer play or deposit, only withdraw their funds before the account was deleted. We confirmed that the casino paid out all the player's funds. The player confirmed that the withdrawal had reached his bank account, and the complaint was marked as resolved.

The player from Chile, with a fully verified account, had deposited 1030€ and earned around 1700€ at Ice Casino. After initiating a withdrawal, the account was blocked without notice, and the player did not receive the winnings or a refund of the deposit. The casino claimed the account was blocked for bonus abuse, specifically for postponing game rounds and using bonus balances improperly. We concluded that the casino had the right to confiscate the winnings and block the account due to these violations. The casino offered to refund only the last 30€ deposit, and the complaint was closed.

The player from Ireland had requested a withdrawal prior to submitting her complaint. Unfortunately, her winnings had not been received yet. The Complaints Team had communicated with the casino, which confirmed that the investigation regarding the missing transactions was ongoing. The casino had stated that both withdrawals were marked as successful, but the player insisted that one of the accounts used for the withdrawal was closed. The Complaints Team had requested proof of the account closure to further assist in resolving the issue. However, due to the prolonged wait for evidence, the complaint had been closed until further documentation was provided.

The player from Chile experienced problems with withdrawals through Skrill and Banco Estado, stating that the requests were being rejected and the funds were not refunded. Moreover, they claimed the casino withdrew funds while they were asleep, and a withdrawal of $12,000 had been pending since Sunday. We requested additional information from the player to investigate the issue further. However, due to a lack of response from the player, the complaint was rejected.

The player from Poland had about 7k PLN confiscated by Ice Casino after she voluntarily requested account verification due to concerns about possible multiple accounts. Despite her account being verified and previous transactions being successful, the casino had blocked access after alleging a duplicate account. Conversations with the casino's support had been unproductive. The casino had provided evidence of two accounts with the same personal details being actively used. Despite the player's insistence that she did not create the second account, it had been difficult for her to prove this claim. We had explained to the player that under these circumstances, we could not proceed with the complaint, which led to its rejection.

A player from Latvia whose account was blocked after a major win could not provide proof of location due to work at sea. Despite the casino's promise to contact him, nearly 20 days passed with no response. We requested the player to send his job contract to the casino. After submitting the document, the player's account and balance were unblocked, resolving the issue.

The player from Poland had their account closed on allegations of document forgery using a graphic program. Despite providing additional documents and asserting their innocence, the player's account remained blocked, and they lost a significant sum of money. After several attempts to conduct video verification, the casino initially claimed technical issues and miscommunication. Upon a second video verification, the account was positively verified, and the player successfully received their winnings. The complaint was resolved with the player confirming receipt of funds.

The player from Portugal had reported a significant decrease in the perceived withdrawal amount after activating bonuses at an online casino. She noted that her withdrawal limit had dropped from 500 euros to 75 euros after bonus activation. After gathering more information from the player we clarified the difference between 'maximum bonus' and 'maximum cashout'. 'Maximum bonus' referred to the maximum amount the casino would contribute to her bonus balance, while 'maximum cashout' was the maximum payout she could receive after completing the wagering requirements of the bonus. Since the issue appeared to be a misunderstanding we closed the complaint as rejected.

The player from Norway, after winning 120,000 Norwegian Kroners and making prior successful withdrawals, had her account blocked during her most recent withdrawal attempt. This blockage appeared linked to a single deposit made from her husband's card in November 2023. Despite providing additional KYC documentation, the casino offered a 'goodwill' bonus of 2000 NOK instead of her original 90,000 balance. We concluded that the player breached the casino's terms and conditions by using a third-party card without prior approval, which justified the casino's actions.

The player from Greece had his account blocked due to a discrepancy in his name in his profile after he won 12,000 Euros. The casino had offered the option to close the account or receive a fraction of the winnings (1290€) and continue with the account. The player admitted to having used a diminutive of his name during registration, which breached the casino's terms and conditions. We had agreed with the casino's decision based on their terms and conditions. We had advised the player to contact the casino's licensing authorities for further assistance. The complaint was subsequently closed.

The player from Denmark was facing difficulties in withdrawing a large sum and later had his account suspended due to an alleged use of a VPN. Despite having provided proof of traveling in Germany when the account was accessed there, the casino continued to insist on resetting the account balance as a condition of reopening the account, something the player strongly opposed. After the player provided detailed explanations and proof of his location during the disputed login times, the casino eventually allowed him to continue using their services. We had marked the complaint as 'resolved' in our system.

The player from New Zealand had been waiting for a withdrawal for over a month. All attempts were rejected due to 'technical issues', despite the player having fulfilled all the necessary verification requirements. The casino attributed the delay to issues with the external payment service provider (PSP). The Complaints Team was unable to proceed further as the player had not responded to follow-up messages and questions, leading to the rejection of the complaint.

The player from Germany had been waiting on a payout from IceCasino since April 26th. Despite assurances from customer support that the payment had been verified, the player had neither received confirmation nor the money. After the player threatened legal action, IceCasino approved the payment within minutes. The player confirmed receipt of the payout after much difficulty. We had since closed the complaint as 'resolved'.

The player from Germany had made a withdrawal request but accidentally entered an incorrect IBAN number, causing the payment to bounce back to the casino. Despite submitting proof and repeatedly querying the status, he continued to receive the same reply that it was being processed, while his money had yet to be credited back to his account. The Complaints Team intervened, escalating the matter to the casino's representative. After extensive communication, the casino offered the player a bonus equivalent to the disputed amount, which was accepted by the player, resolving the issue.

The player from Greece had experienced difficulties in withdrawing his casino winnings of 5,500 euros due to his account being blocked. The casino had claimed the account was blocked because the player was using a VPN. However, the player had pointed out that a casino representative had previously recommended using a VPN to access free spins on games not available in his country. After a series of exchanges, the casino had confirmed that the player could continue using his account and his withdrawal transaction was approved. We had since marked the complaint as resolved.

The player from Germany had experienced account closure after multiple deposits and winnings. He had demanded his deposited balance and threatened to seek legal assistance if his balance was not withdrawn. The casino had requested proof of registration and gameplay from Austria, as they did not accept new players from Germany. The player had not responded to inquiries about the possible use of VPN or IP-masking software to hide his true location and access the casino website. As the player failed to respond to further messages and questions, we were unable to investigate further and were forced to reject the complaint.

The player from Germany had experienced withdrawal issues with ICECasino. He had mistakenly entered an incorrect IBAN during the withdrawal process, which resulted in his funds being transferred to an insurance company. The casino had not provided the incorrect IBAN used for the transaction, which was required by the insurance company to resolve the issue. The player's account had been verified since August 2023 and he had successfully made several withdrawals prior to this incident. The casino had been unresponsive, advising the player to wait. The issue was being handled in another complaint by the Complaints Team.

The player from Bavaria had faced a delay in his payout. He hadn't received his winnings even though the casino had approved the payout on April 16th. The casino had requested the player to specify the disputed transaction IDs as they had no active or pending withdrawal requests. However, the player later confirmed that the payment had been made. Consequently, we had marked the complaint as 'resolved'.

The player from Germany had been unable to withdraw a failed deposit back after waiting for over 14 days, despite having been told it would take a maximum of 72 hours. The player had contacted the casino's support frequently and provided necessary evidence, but had only received repeated assurances that the case was under review. We had recommended that the player contact his payment provider and extended the complaint's timeframe by 7 days for further updates. However, without any response from the player, we had to reject the complaint. The casino representative had claimed that the deposit transaction had been credited to the player's account.

The player from Slovenia had made winnings of 3000€ but had encountered a three-day verification delay before withdrawal. Fearing addiction and the loss of his winnings, he had set a limit but had been able to change it, which led to the loss of his winnings. We had attempted to investigate the issue, asking the player for further details and extending the response time. However, due to the player's lack of response, we were unable to proceed with the investigation and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Poland had her account, along with a 5000 euro payout, blocked during the KYC verification process. She was accused of violating the terms and conditions due to the use of a graphics program for documentation, despite previous approval. The support team did not provide clarification or assistance. The issue should have been resolved by offering the player a video verification call, but the complaint was ultimately rejected due to the player's lack of response and cooperation.

The player from Latvia had their account blocked when they attempted to withdraw their winnings of 5000 euros from IceCasino. The issue had arisen due to the player's use of a VPN, which was against the casino's rules. The player had argued that they had used the VPN unintentionally, not for gaming purposes, and had previously received payouts under the same conditions. After a series of discussions, the casino had decided to unblock the player's account and allowed them to continue using their services. The player had confirmed that their account was unblocked with all their winnings intact. The player had expressed gratitude for the assistance that the complaints team provided. The issue had been resolved successfully.

The player from Poland had successfully verified his account and made a deposit, but was later accused of using Photoshop, leading to the closure of his account. Communication with the casino had been unfruitful, with the casino insisting that their decision was final. The player had been asked to undergo video verification by the casino, which he agreed to. However, he did not respond to further requests from the casino and the Complaints Team, leading to the rejection of his complaint. The player's lack of response had prevented further investigation into the issue.

The player from Germany had been unable to withdraw 19,000 euros from his account. The casino had attributed this issue to a system error. The player had communicated with the casino, but the details of the problem had remained unclear. We had requested additional evidence from the player to investigate his claims, but he had failed to provide the necessary information. Consequently, we couldn't proceed with the investigation and had to reject the complaint.

A German player had issues with a delayed withdrawal of €1,500 from IceCasino, despite having a verified account and having previously successfully withdrawn €1,350. The casino responded, stating the withdrawal had been marked as successful and advised the player to contact their support with any evidence. The player did contact the support, but the issue remained unresolved for over three days. We extended the timer for a week for the player to respond, but received no further communication. Consequently, we were unable to investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Germany had registered an account with IceCasino using a VPN from Canada. After making several deposits and attempting to withdraw his winnings of 500€, his account had been blocked. The casino had demanded proof that he was in Canada. The player had admitted to using a VPN for registration because he couldn't create an account from Germany. We had pointed out that the casino's terms and conditions prohibited the use of VPNs. The player did not respond, leading us to reject the complaint.

The player from Germany had had an issue with ICEcasino, where his account had been blocked during the verification process, preventing him from withdrawing his €25,000 winnings. The player had claimed to have registered while in Poland, providing a rental agreement as proof, which the casino had rejected. The casino had suspected the player used a VPN to register from Germany, a restricted country. The player had admitted to residing in Germany long-term, and being in Poland for a short time only. We concluded that we were unable to assist the player due to his inability to complete the verification process. The complaint had been initially rejected but was later resolved after the player reached an agreement with the casino.

The player from Austria had created two accounts with the same online casino and had informed the casino about this. Consequently, both accounts had been locked, blocking access to his winnings of approximately 220 Euros. The casino had insisted that the accounts could only be unlocked if the player forfeited the winnings. Despite the player's claim that the additional accounts were created by family members using his phone, the casino had maintained that this was a violation of their terms and conditions. After reviewing the case, we concluded that the player's actions did indeed violate the casino's rules. As a result, we were unable to assist the player in retrieving his winnings.

The player from Poland reported that Ice Casino had closed his account during a withdrawal attempt of 1110 euros, accusing him of having a second account. The player insisted that he only had a single, verified account. After reviewing the evidence provided by both the player and the casino, we concluded that both accounts shared the same name and date of birth, indicating they might belong to the same person. As creating multiple accounts was against the casino's Terms and Conditions, we rejected the player's complaint.

The player from Portugal, who had been verified in September, had recently faced issues with withdrawals from an online casino. The casino began imposing a withdrawal fee and rejected her withdrawal request, citing the lack of a Skrill account verification document, despite the player having provided it earlier. The casino's records showed no balance in the player's account and it had been blocked upon her request. Despite our efforts to resolve the issue, the player did not respond to our messages, which led us to reject the complaint.

The player from Japan had switched use and registration from Canada to Japan and confirmed account status with the operator, deposited money, and fulfilled betting requirements. However, when he attempted to withdraw winnings, the casino closed his account due to prior VPN use. The player claimed that the casino was aware of his VPN use and had told him he could play without issues. The casino, on the other hand, argued that the player had breached terms and conditions by using a VPN to register. After a thorough investigation and review of the evidence, we found that the player had knowingly circumvented registration restrictions using a VPN. Despite some confusion from the support representative, the casino had acted in accordance with its terms and conditions. Therefore, the complaint was rejected.

The player from Germany, after waiting for over a week, had received his withdrawal of 250 Euros. He had lodged a complaint about the delay, since the casino rules had stated a 2 business day processing time. The player had already been verified and had previously made successful withdrawals. The Complaints Team had kept the complaint open until the player confirmed receipt of his winnings. However, due to the player's lack of further response, the complaint was eventually dismissed.

The player from Portugal had his account blocked after he attempted a withdrawal following a successful KYC process. He had complied with all requirements including making a deposit and sending necessary documents, but he could not access his account afterwards. He planned to take legal actions and chargeback via his bank if he didn't receive his money. The casino had requested additional proof of gameplay from Germany, which the player found unreasonable. The player also accused the casino of not complying with GDPR regulations regarding personal data. We had advised the player to provide the requested evidence, but due to his inability to do so, we were forced to reject the complaint.

The player from Poland had won 18000 PLN playing Texas Hold'em Bonus at IceCasino but discovered later that the money had disappeared. The casino had blamed a game glitch and had not resolved the issue. The player had provided screenshots of the winnings but failed to respond to further requests for information. Despite having extended the response deadline, we had received no further communication from the player. Therefore, we were unable to investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Croatia had a problem with deposits at a casino, having noticed additional charges of 10-20% above the deposit amount. The casino attributed these charges to the payment processing system. We advised the player to contact her payment provider for further investigation, as the casino could not influence these charges. However, the player did not respond to our messages, which led us to close the complaint due to lack of further information.

The player from Greece had faced an issue with withdrawal refusal and account banning due to accidental VPN use from Austria at an online casino. Despite his claim that the VPN usage was minimal and unintentional, the casino had refused to comply with his withdrawal request. The player had also claimed that the casino's customer service was uncooperative and had repeatedly given the same response without resolving the issue. After the Complaints Team had intervened and contacted the casino, the casino reconsidered its decision and reopened the player's account with the full balance. However, the player had requested compensation for the delay in his withdrawals, which he attributed to the casino's initial refusal to cooperate. The Complaints Team had concluded that there were no grounds for such compensation and the complaint was rejected.

The player from Germany had had their casino account locked due to a payment made years prior from a joint credit account that was now closed. Despite recent payments having been made from the player's personal bank account, winnings had been blocked and the casino had offered a compensation of €100 instead. The player had provided all necessary details and had cooperated with the Complaints Team. Eventually, the casino had verified the player's account and had allowed her to request a withdrawal. However, the player had reported some issues with the withdrawal process. Despite our efforts to assist, the player had stopped responding, leading to the rejection of the complaint due to lack of communication.

The player from Portugal had experienced a sudden blockage of her account while she was playing. Despite having contacted the casino's live chat, she had received no clarification on the reason behind the blockage. She had confirmed that she passed full KYC verification and had made numerous successful withdrawals in the past. However, she was not informed about the closure and had no balance in her account at that time. We had examined the casino's Terms and Conditions and found that they reserved the right to close accounts with a low balance without notice. As such, we were unable to assist the player further.

The player from Poland had won a significant sum, made a withdrawal of 4,000 PLN, and had her account blocked by the casino afterward. The casino had alleged rule violations, a claim the player had disputed. The player had previously closed an account with the casino and opened a new one, which was verified. However, the casino had discovered that the player had two accounts, both of which had received deposits and bonuses. This was a violation of the casino's rules, leading to the account closure and voiding of winnings. Despite the player's protests, we had concluded that the casino acted within its rights due to the player's violation of the multiple accounts rule. The complaint was rejected due to the player's failure to respond to our inquiries for further investigation.

The player from Ireland had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting the complaint. The payment hadn't been processed at that time. The player reported that her documents were denied during the KYC verification process, which had caused a delay in her withdrawal. However, she had managed to withdraw her winnings bit by bit successfully. As a result, she confirmed the resolution of her issue, and we had marked the case as resolved.

The player from Brazil had a pending withdrawal with ICECASINO. He continued playing after a successful earlier payout but his recent withdrawal request had not been processed. His contacts with customer service had resulted in standard responses. His account had been fully verified for months and he had made other withdrawals at the casino before. The issue had been resolved successfully and the withdrawal had been deposited into his account via the website. We had marked the complaint as 'resolved' in our system.

The player from Brazil was dissatisfied with Ice Casino's claim of a terms of use violation, which resulted in the non-payment of significant winnings. Despite accusations of exploiting software bugs or errors, the player maintained they didn't knowingly use any unfair advantage and requested a detailed explanation. Upon reviewing the evidence provided by the casino and the official statement from the game provider, we found clear indications of exploitation of bugs, loopholes, or errors in the software on multiple accounts, including the player's case. Some bets even added money to the account instead of deducting it. Therefore, we concluded that the casino acted correctly and within its terms and conditions. The player did not respond to our request for comments, leading us to reject the complaint.

The player from Germany had won €70,000 playing Oasis Poker Classic, but the casino later reduced his winnings to €250, citing technical errors. The casino had not responded to his attempts to reclaim the original winnings. We had asked the player for more details about his communication with the casino and for any proof of his winnings. However, due to the lack of response from the player, we had to reject the complaint. We were unable to conduct any further investigation or provide potential solutions due to this lack of communication.

The player from Romania had had an issue with IceCasino where his requested withdrawal of 850 euros had remained 'in progress' for an extended period, beyond the usual 2-4 working days. The casino had not provided a deadline for the payout completion. However, after the complaint was filed, the player confirmed that he had received all his winnings in his bank account and requested to close the complaint. We had subsequently marked the complaint as 'resolved'.

The player from Denmark had difficulty withdrawing their winnings of 7000kr which were split into three parts. The initial 1000kr was received, but the player had been waiting for 19 days for the remaining 6000kr. The Complaints Team asked for additional information to understand the situation and then contacted the casino. The casino stated that all withdrawals had been successful. The player confirmed that the withdrawal had been accepted and would update once it was received. The Complaints Team extended the timer by 7 days for the player's response, but without any confirmation, the complaint was rejected.

The player from Lithuania had attempted to withdraw 900€ in two transactions, but was blocked from logging into his account. The player had confirmed that they did not use a VPN or other software to alter their location while playing at the casino, and that their account was verified. The casino had allowed the player to continue using their services and had warned about the use of VPN. However, despite our efforts to resolve the issue, the player did not respond to our messages and questions. Consequently, we had to reject the complaint due to lack of further information.

The player from Greece had attempted to withdraw 2500 euros from his verified account but was continually asked for more documents. The casino had closed his account the following day without providing reasons. The player had claimed to have submitted all the required documents correctly. The casino had stated that the account was not blocked, implying the player had agreed to certain terms. The player had admitted to using a VPN, which was against the casino's terms and conditions. The player did not respond to further inquiries from the complaints team, resulting in the complaint being rejected due to the lack of response.

The player from Denmark had been awaiting account verification at IceCasino to withdraw their winnings. After his account had been verified, he had started receiving his winnings in installments. He had confirmed receiving all his winnings and had expressed satisfaction with the resolution process. Consequently, we had marked the complaint as 'resolved' in our system.

The player from Hungary was experiencing withdrawal issues due to the casino's claim of a duplicate account, which the player denied. The casino had approved his withdrawal request, but then froze his account and asked him to forfeit his winnings. The casino provided evidence of two accounts associated with the player, both having gaming history and used bonuses. The player contested this, but the casino confirmed the presence of two different phone numbers and emails linked to the accounts. With this, we concluded that the player had breached the casino's terms and conditions by creating duplicate accounts, thus validating the casino's actions. The complaint was therefore rejected.

The player from Greece, who had previously made successful withdrawals, had reported delays with his recent withdrawal request of €4,500. Despite having completed the verification process, the casino had demanded additional documents. However, the player had later gambled away his winnings and requested the closure of his complaint.

The player from Greece had reported a delay in the withdrawal process at an online casino. The casino had attributed the delay to technical issues with an external provider. The player's account had been verified, and he had made successful withdrawals using the same method in the past. Despite repeated assurances from the casino that the withdrawal was in progress, the player hadn't received his funds for an extended period. The Complaints Team had intervened and contacted the casino for clarification. The casino confirmed that all withdrawal requests had been paid out. The player confirmed receipt of his funds, and the issue was subsequently marked as resolved by the Complaints Team.

The player from Finland had struggled to withdraw €40 from Icecasino.com. Despite having successfully completed KYC verification with the bank card used for the deposit, the casino had asked for information on a second bank card, which hadn't been used for any transactions, and the verification had been "on review". The casino had allowed the withdrawal. We confirmed with both parties that the withdrawal had been successful and the issue had been resolved.

The player from Lithuania had experienced an account closure after a dispute over bonus funds at IceCasino, asserting he had not broken any rules. The casino had accused the player of playing safe, but the player had countered that he lost real funds. The player had also insisted that he played games where bonus funds were permitted. However, the casino had provided evidence showing that the player had unfairly abused the bonus. Based on this evidence, the Complaints Team had rejected the player's complaint.

The player from Indonesia had his account blocked after the approval of KYC documents. He had been informed of a 1-3 working days account verification process but his account had been subsequently blocked when he tried to log in. He had claimed to have won 17000jpy and tried to withdraw 8000jpy, which was rejected. The casino had provided evidence showing that the player had created multiple accounts and activated bonuses on all of them, which was against the casino's terms and conditions. We had concluded that the casino had acted within their rights to block the player's account and confiscate his winnings due to the violation of their terms.

The player from Greece had continuously experienced withdrawal issues, with the casino citing technical difficulties as the reason. Despite several withdrawal attempts totaling 1292.65 euros, the casino had repeatedly failed to deposit the funds into the player's account. The player confirmed that she had passed full KYC verification, and had previously made successful withdrawals from the casino. After a series of exchanges, the casino stated that the majority of the withdrawal requests were successful and asked the player to confirm when all the money reached her account. The player confirmed that she received her funds after months of waiting. We had marked the complaint as 'resolved'.

The player from Portugal had expressed frustration because his account was frozen despite having provided all necessary information in a video conference. He had submitted his details, including ID and bank card selfies, National Identity Card photo, and last deposit statement to an email address that was later revealed to belong to a different operator. The casino representative had clarified that they did not conduct video verifications unless fraudulent activity was suspected and questioned the player about the correct casino involved. The player failed to respond to further inquiries, which led us to reject the complaint due to lack of response.

The player from Chile had deposited approximately 1400 Euros on Ice Casino and had won, bringing his balance to 3800 Euros. However, when he had attempted to withdraw the funds, the casino had locked his account and had not paid out the winnings or refunded the initial deposit, claiming a violation of the casino's terms and conditions. After the player had filed a complaint, the casino had agreed to pay out the winnings but decided to permanently block the player's account due to the violation of Bonus Terms and Conditions. The casino confirmed that the player had received his winnings. The player had expressed satisfaction with the resolution. However, the player did not respond to our final confirmation request, and hence we had to close the complaint.

The German player had won 2000€ at the casino on 22.12.2023 but had not received the payout, despite his account having been fully verified. He had contacted the casino's support multiple times, only to be advised to wait. The player had reported that a similar issue had occurred with a previous payout. However, he had received a part of his winnings (1000€) during the complaint process. The remaining amount was still pending without a specified timeline. Finally, the player confirmed that he had received the complete transfer of his winnings. Consequently, we had marked the complaint as 'resolved'.

The player from Moldova had been blocked from the casino due to an accidental incorrect entry of her birthdate. She had deposited 10€ and was hoping to withdraw 35€ when this happened. We had explained that providing accurate personal details was a crucial requirement as per the casino's terms and conditions. Failure to do so could result in account suspension. Despite extending the response time, the player had failed to respond, leading us to close the complaint.

The Greek player had created an account, made a deposit, and won €1000. However, the casino locked his account citing a duplicate account violation. The player admitted that his nephew had used his card to create an account at the casino without his knowledge. We concluded that the player was responsible for his payment methods and devices. Therefore, we couldn't help the player recover his deposit from the casino. The player had been advised to file a complaint with the casino's regulator if he disagreed with our decision.

The player from Greece had deposited €20 and made €270 in profit but experienced delays in verification and cancellation of withdrawal by the casino despite having provided all necessary documents. The player had contacted the casino several times without receiving a response, which raised concerns as the casino's terms stated that payments would be approved within 5 minutes to 12 hours. After the player's complaint, the casino processed the withdrawal. The player confirmed receipt of her winnings, which led us to close the complaint as 'resolved'.

The player from Greece had been struggling to verify her identity at the casino for a year, despite having provided the necessary documents. The unresolved issue was related to a sum of 45 euros. The casino responded, stating that their records showed her account as verified. However, without any confirmation from the player, we had to reject the complaint.

The player from Lithuania's account had been locked by IceCasino, who accused him of bonus abuse. He had disputed these allegations, stating that he had played with real funds before using bonus funds. Despite his explanations, the casino had only agreed to unlock his account if he accepted a nullified balance. After a series of exchanges, the casino admitted it had been their mistake for not prohibiting playing with bonus funds in certain games. They subsequently unblocked the player's account, allowing him to withdraw his winnings of 510EUR. The player had thanked the Complaints Team for their assistance in resolving the issue.

The player from Romania had been trying to contact the casino's customer support without success. His main concern was about the verification of his documents needed for withdrawal. He had submitted and received approval for his ID card and proof of address. He had also sent a picture of his bank card, but it was still pending verification. However, there had been no progress or response from the casino. We advised the player to wait for at least 14 days for the verification or withdrawal process to be completed. Despite extending the response time, the player failed to provide further updates, leading us to close the complaint.

The player from Germany had an issue with IceCasino regarding a withdrawal of 1900 Euros made on December 11th, which he had not received in his Santander Bank account. Despite the casino having provided proof of payment, the issue had remained unresolved. The player had suggested that the casino re-deposit the money for a fresh withdrawal attempt but had received no assistance. After lengthy back-and-forth communication involving the player, the casino, and the Complaints Team, and after the player had provided an official document from his bank confirming the missing transaction, the casino had finally confirmed the transaction. The player had confirmed the receipt of his winnings, thus resolving the complaint.

The player from Norway had about 10,000 NOK balance in their account. After requesting a withdrawal, the account was blocked due to allegedly having duplicate accounts. The casino offers to unblock the account only if the player agrees to void the balance. The complaint was resolved as the player's account got reopen.

A player from Greece has raised problems about recurrent game freezing issues and perceived manipulation of game provider offerings in a particular casino. Despite troubleshooting efforts, the issue persists, preventing the player from enjoying his preferred games and forcing him to play other providers, causing a significant amount of distress. The complaint was closed as the player had no remaining balance left on his account.

The player from Germany had a pending withdrawal of €1000 in his Mifinity account since 11.12, despite a completed KYC review. The process had exceeded the casino’s stated processing times and his attempts to contact the support had been unfruitful. The casino had asked him to make a withdrawal request via bank transfer. However, the player did not respond to further messages and questions from the Complaints Team. As a result, we were unable to investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Germany had faced a delayed payout due to a dysfunctional confirmation link that was sent via email. The casino had also requested the disputed transaction ID for further investigation. However, the player had failed to respond within the extended timeframe, which led to the complaint being rejected. Despite reopening the complaint upon the player's request and asking for a screenshot of the withdrawal request for further investigation, the player did not respond. Therefore, we had no choice but to reject the complaint again.

The player from Greece had faced an issue where his casino account was banned while he had €580 in it. The casino had claimed that the ban was due to the use of third-party data but didn't provide further details. We had concluded that the year of birth in the player's casino account didn't match his ID, violating the casino's Terms and Conditions. As such, we could not assist the player further and his complaint had been rejected.

The player from Ireland had experienced delays in the crediting of a deposit. The casino had advised the player to wait for 96 hours. The player received the deposit after a significant delay and expressed dissatisfaction with the service, suspecting misuse of his funds during the delay. The casino confirmed that the delay was due to the payment provider and not any misuse of funds. We had considered the complaint as resolved since the deposited funds were eventually credited to the player's account. The casino had permanently blocked the player's account upon his request.

The player from Estonia had found his account blocked after winning a significant amount at Ice Casino due to another account registered under his name. He had unknowingly shared his bank card details, which had been used to create and deposit in the alternate account. After he contacted the Complaints Team, they had communicated with the casino on the player's behalf. The casino had reconsidered their initial decision and unblocked the player's account. The player had since regained access to his account and received his winnings, resolving the issue.

The player from Brazil had faced extended delays with his withdrawal that exceeded the casino's stated processing time. He was frustrated with the casino's policy enforcement and lack of accountability. The casino responded, stating that the withdrawal had been processed as per their terms and conditions. The player also claimed a promised bonus of 5k was not paid, but the complaints team noted that the inability to activate a bonus did not constitute a blockage. The player did not respond to further inquiries, leading to the rejection of the complaint.

The player from Brazil had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting the complaint. The payment hadn't been processed yet. The Complaints Team had advised the player that withdrawal delays could have been due to unfinished KYC verification or a high volume of withdrawal requests, and recommended waiting at least 14 days before submitting a complaint. The casino had confirmed that all withdrawals were processed according to their terms and conditions. After some time, the player confirmed that he had received his earnings. Consequently, the complaint was marked as 'resolved' by the Complaints Team.

The player from Ireland is experiencing technical difficulties with the casino's website, preventing access to games outside of demo mode. Furthermore, their game history has been deleted and the issue persists across multiple devices. The complaint was resolved as the player received his remaining balance and closed his account.

The player from Greece had had her account with Ice Casino blocked, as the casino had claimed she had two accounts under her name, which she had denied. The casino had then decided to unblock her account but without her €3000 winnings. After her unsuccessful attempts to resolve the issue with customer service, we had intervened. Following our mediation, the casino had unlocked her account, and she had been able to receive her winnings. The issue had been successfully resolved, and the player had expressed her gratitude for our assistance.

The player from Brazil was unable to use bonuses. He alleged that the online casino had blocked his access to bonuses after he had a successful winning streak. The casino, however, maintained that they had the discretion to grant or withhold bonuses. The player threatened legal action and demanded compensation for moral damages. We, the complaints team, explained that we were unable to penalize the casino for their bonus policy and suggested the player find another casino that met his bonus requirements. As a result, the complaint was rejected.

The player from Latvia had struggled with withdrawing 3000 EUR winnings from Ice Casino. The player's account had been blocked on the basis of logging in from Germany or using a VPN, which he denied. Despite his evidence, the casino insisted that he had violated a rule and would only unblock the account if he voided the winnings. After our intervention, the casino had re-evaluated the case and decided to unblock the player's account and restore his winnings. The player had confirmed that he was able to request a withdrawal and received approval. However, we could not confirm if the player had received the funds as he did not respond to our final inquiry. The complaint was rejected due to lack of confirmation from the player.

The player from Poland was experiencing issues with receiving a payout from Icecasino. He had been waiting since November 15th, with one withdrawal still not processed after the promised deadline. The player claimed to have made multiple inquiries to the casino regarding the delay, but the issue remained unresolved. The Complaints Team had attempted to mediate the situation by contacting the casino and asking for its representative's intervention. The casino stated that the issue had been resolved and asked the player for confirmation. However, without the player's confirmation of the resolution, the complaint had been rejected.

A Greek online casino player had faced delays in the verification process, which had prevented him from withdrawing his funds. The player had submitted the necessary documents for verification but had been waiting for approval from the casino. After he submitted a complaint, the player's account was finally verified, and he managed to successfully withdraw his funds. The Complaints Team then marked the complaint as 'resolved'.

The player from Germany had made a withdrawal request on November 16th, which remained in a 'being processed' state. The player had been told to wait due to issues with the payment system, exceeding their stated maximum wait time of 5 working days. Despite her frustration, the casino insisted that the payment was processed on November 27th. The player failed to confirm receipt of the payment despite our efforts to communicate with her. Therefore, we were unable to further investigate the matter and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Sweden had faced issues with the Dreamy Genie slot game due to an inability to pick cards during a bonus game, despite several attempts and contacting support. The unfinished bet made in September was still visible in his game history. The casino had initially responded by saying that the round had finished correctly and offered free spins as a goodwill gesture. However, the player disputed this and provided further screenshots to support his claim. After further communication, the casino had contacted the game provider to investigate the issue. The game provider had unlocked the round and instructed the player to clear cache, cookies, and reopen the game. The casino had also credited the player with €10 as an apology. The player later confirmed that his issue had been resolved. The complaint was then closed as 'resolved'.

The player from Peru had faced issues with her withdrawal from IceCasino due to alleged technical errors. She had won from a no-deposit bonus, completed the rollover, and made her first deposit. However, her withdrawal request had been rejected, with the casino stating that her requirements were incorrect. The casino later stated that the player's balance was zero. Despite attempts by the complaints team to resolve the issue, the player did not respond to further inquiries.

The player from Argentina attempted a deposit in pesos, but Astropay is incorrectly translating this to dollars, causing an increased charge of around $3500 ARS. The complaint was rejected as it is up to the player whether he deposits into the casino or not and had no pending withdrawal.

The player from Germany had transferred 800 EUR to IceCasino, however, the deposit had not appeared in their casino account. We had advised the player to contact his payment provider to investigate the issue, as it was out of the casino's control. The casino had confirmed the transaction was unsuccessful and suggested that the funds should have been returned to the player's bank account. The player later confirmed that the issue had been resolved and his money had been returned to his account. Consequently, we had closed the complaint as 'resolved'.

The player from Bulgaria had experienced delays in account verification which was followed by account blocking. The casino claimed that the player held a duplicate account, which the player disputed. The player sought to withdraw $400. Upon investigation, we had received evidence from the casino that the player had indeed created multiple accounts, which was a direct violation of the casino's terms and conditions. As a result, the player's complaint had been rejected.

The player from Germany had been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, his payout hadn't been received yet. The Complaints Team had advised the player to wait at least 14 days after requesting the withdrawal before submitting a complaint. The casino had reached out to the player for confirmation of receipt of the withdrawal. However, due to the player's lack of response to the messages and inquiries, we were unable to continue the investigation and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Norway had his account blocked after he successfully verified his account and attempted to withdraw 150,000 NOK. The player was unable to access his account history and his money was nowhere to be found. The casino alleged that the player held a duplicate account and had applied the same bonuses to both accounts, which violated their policy. Following an extended discussion, the casino consented to pay the player his winnings, deducting the bonus amount received on the duplicate account and an administrative fee. The player agreed to these terms. The complaint was deemed resolved, but the player did not verify receiving his funds before the case was closed.

The player from Germany had requested a withdrawal prior to submitting this complaint. Unfortunately, his winnings hadn't been received yet. The Complaints Team had advised the player to wait for at least 14 days after requesting the withdrawal before submitting a complaint, as delays could occur due to KYC verification or high volume of withdrawal requests. The casino had asked the player to notify their support about the issue. However, despite several attempts to communicate with the player and an extension of the complaint resolution timeframe, the player failed to respond. Consequently, we were unable to investigate further and the complaint was rejected.

The player from Poland had been waiting for a withdrawal from IceCasino for over 10 days. Despite the specified 5 business day withdrawal timeframe, the casino kept asking him to wait and provided unclear responses to his queries. He confirmed that he was fully verified and had previously received smaller amounts on the same day to his online wallet. However, he was facing issues with a withdrawal of 700PLN. We extended the timer for resolution by 7 days, but due to the player's lack of response, we couldn't investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Canada had been trying to withdraw $162.60 from her casino account. Despite having successfully completed and confirmed her verification process, the casino was still asking for banking information and had delayed the withdrawal for over a month. The player had repeatedly submitted the requested documents and contacted customer service but was unable to withdraw her winnings. Upon our advice, she sent her banking information as a PDF file instead of a screenshot. This seemed to have resolved the issue, and the player was able to receive her money. We had then marked the complaint as 'resolved'.

The player from Germany had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting his complaint. His money hadn't been received at that time. The Complaints Team had advised the player that withdrawals could sometimes take several days or weeks to process, potentially due to unfinished KYC verification or a high volume of withdrawal requests. They had advised the player to wait at least 14 days after requesting the withdrawal before submitting a complaint. The player later confirmed that he had received his money, and the Complaints Team marked the complaint as resolved.

The player from Portugal had indicated an issue with a delayed withdrawal in the casino. The Complaints Team had advised him to wait at least 14 days after requesting the withdrawal before submitting a complaint, given that his account had been successfully verified, his game history checked, and his withdrawal approved by the casino. The issue was eventually resolved successfully.

The player from Portugal had encountered an issue with his account being unexpectedly blocked by IceCasino, despite having completed the KYC verification process. This issue had prevented him from withdrawing his remaining deposit after losing a bet on a game called 'DICE'. He had registered his account 10 days prior and had wagered his deposit of €35 three times. The player had confirmed that he hadn't used any bonus. We had reached out to IceCasino for clarification and they had responded that the payout was made via a cryptocurrency. However, the player did not respond to our request to confirm receipt of the payment. Consequently, we had to reject the complaint due to lack of communication from the player's side.

The player from Portugal had had his account blocked by Ice Casino, which had accused him of bonus fraud. He had insisted that he hadn't activated any bonus. His winnings had been confiscated and the casino had claimed it was irreversible. After a series of exchanges between the player, the Complaints Team, and the casino, it had been established that the player hadn't violated any rules and should have been allowed to withdraw his funds. The casino had agreed to this, and the player had confirmed that he received his money. The issue had thus been resolved satisfactorily.

The player from Norway had had difficulties with a $30 deposit at a casino due to a KYC issue where his phone number had already been in use. The casino had blocked his account for duplication but had refused to refund the deposit, suggesting to void the funds instead. The player had demanded a return of his money. After a lengthy discussion and multiple withdrawal attempts, the casino finally processed his withdrawal. The player had confirmed receiving his money and had agreed to rescind all his complaints. The issue has been successfully resolved.

The player from Brazil had faced issues with applying bonus codes on the casino platform, despite adhering to all the rules. He continued to receive the codes daily but was unable to utilize them, while his friends could do so without issues. We had informed him that casinos reserved the right to restrict or close player accounts and were not obligated to provide bonuses. The player acknowledged the casino's policy but expressed disagreement. Unfortunately, we were unable to help the player resolve the issue, leading to the rejection of his complaint.

The player from Germany had won between 700-800 Euros in the 'Wild Marmalade' slot but the winnings disappeared after they switched games. The game and the winnings weren't showing in the transaction history, which prevented a review or resolution of the issue despite contact with support. The player had requested that the winnings be credited and the account closed. However, the casino stated they could not find any rounds in the game "Wild Marmalade" on the player's account. We had extended the timer for the player to provide further evidence, but no response was received. As a result, we were unable to investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Japan had his account blocked in January with a tournament prize pending. The casino had not provided a reason for the closure. The player had estimated his winnings to be between €1000 and €1600. After the player had submitted a complaint, the casino confirmed that €600 had been credited to the player's account after the block. The player had initially contested the amount, believing he had won more, but the casino clarified that he had taken the 6th place in the tournament and the payout was correct. The player had confirmed receipt of the winnings and the issue had been resolved successfully.

The player from Hong Kong reports that a deposit made two hours ago has not been credited to their casino account. Even if we assumed that the issue has been resolved, without a confirmation from the player, we were forced to reject this complaint.

The player from Austria had inadvertently created two accounts at IceCasino. Only one account had been verified and used for deposits. When she attempted to withdraw €400 winnings, the account was blocked. After submitting her complaint, she had managed to reach an agreement with IceCasino. Consequently, we had marked the complaint as 'resolved' in our system.

The player from Poland had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting the complaint. The payment hadn't been processed at that time. The Complaints Team had advised the player to wait at least 14 days after requesting the withdrawal before submitting a complaint. The casino confirmed that the transaction had been successfully processed. Despite extending the timer by 7 days for the player's response, the player failed to respond, which led us to close the complaint.

The player from Slovenia had experienced a delay with his withdrawal. Eventually, the player informed us that the issue had been resolved. Consequently, we marked the complaint as 'resolved' in our system.

The player from Germany had been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. The Complaints Team had advised her that it was common for withdrawals to take some time to process, possibly due to unfinished KYC verification or a high volume of withdrawal requests. They had recommended patience, full cooperation with the casino, and waiting at least 14 days after requesting a withdrawal before submitting a complaint. The player later confirmed that her winnings had been paid out in full and the case had been settled. The complaint was subsequently marked as 'resolved'.

The player from Poland had an issue with IceCasino where her account had been closed and winnings confiscated due to a violation of the casino's rules by "delaying game rounds". After admitting her mistake, she had requested for her account to be reopened without bonuses. The casino had agreed to reopen her account under the condition that she could only play with real money. We had initially categorized the complaint as "rejected" and "unjustified". However, the player had requested to reopen the complaint as her account was still blocked. After additional communication, the casino had unblocked her account, and the player had confirmed the resolution. We then closed the complaint as 'resolved'.