Ruby Slots Casino Review

The player from Texas had been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, their payout had not been received yet. We advised the player to wait at least 14 days for the withdrawal process to complete. Despite multiple follow-ups, the player did not respond to our messages. Therefore, the complaint was rejected due to lack of communication from the player.

The player from the United States experienced no response from the casino's 24/7 support regarding a withdrawal request. Despite promises of quick withdrawals, the player had to send money to verify their account. We requested additional information from the player to investigate the issue further. However, due to the player's lack of response to our inquiries, the complaint was rejected.

The player from Mexico experienced difficulty with withdrawing winnings due to a lack of understanding and required assistance to complete the process. The player mentioned that his account had been verified during creation and that he had won using a bonus. We requested further details about the bonus and verification process. The player failed to provide the necessary information within the given timeframe. Consequently, the complaint was rejected due to a lack of response from the player.

The player from Mexico won from free spins, and while attempting to withdraw part of the amount and sending identification, the winnings were erased. She did not initially contact the casino's support for an explanation. When prompted by us to contact the casino and provide transaction history, she chose not to follow up. Consequently, the complaint was rejected at her request.

The player from the US was given a bonus that had a playthrough requirement and won a total of $9,000. However, they were informed that they could only withdraw $2,000, and the rest of the winnings were withdrawn by the manager. They were also told there was a 96-hour hold on the winnings. After reviewing the case and the provided evidence, it was determined that the player had manually claimed a Freechip bonus, which had a maximum cashout limit of $100. The casino adhered to its terms and conditions, and the player received the maximum allowable amount. Consequently, the complaint was rejected.

The player from Louisiana had been experiencing significant withdrawal delays since April 27, 2024, and had yet to receive a check for his winnings. We had requested additional information and documents to investigate the issue but did not receive a response from the player. Consequently, the complaint was rejected due to a lack of communication.

The player from Oregon struggled with the withdrawal process that was initially approved but later faced a delay. The casino also asked for additional document verification. Despite the player claiming to have submitted the required documents, the casino stated that multiple attempts to obtain the necessary information were not responded to, leading to the denial of the withdrawal request. The complaint was ultimately rejected due to a lack of further response from the player.

An Arizona-based player had requested a $643 withdrawal from Inclave Casino five months ago, which was declined. Despite providing all requested verification documents, the casino stated that the player's bank statement was unacceptable due to being held jointly with a spouse. The player agreed to switch the withdrawal method to Bitcoin, but this was also declined. After extensive communication and document resubmissions, including a new bank statement and proof of address, the player was eventually granted a one-time exception for a Bitcoin payout. The player successfully received the payment after the casino's approvals department expedited the withdrawal process. The complaint was marked as resolved.

The player from California had requested a withdrawal prior to submitting this complaint. Unfortunately, their winnings hadn't been received yet. We requested additional information and confirmation of KYC verification, but the player failed to respond within the given timeframe. Consequently, the complaint was rejected due to lack of response and necessary information.

The player from the US had been struggling with a delayed withdrawal from an online casino. The casino had persistently postponed the payment and requested information that had already been provided. We attempted to engage with the player to resolve the issue but received no response to our queries. Consequently, we had to reject the case due to the player's lack of communication, which hindered further investigation or potential resolution.

The player from Oregon had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting her complaint. The payment hadn't been processed yet. The player claimed the casino was refusing to cash out her winnings and had stopped communicating with her. She had provided all necessary verification documents and believed the issue stemmed from sharing an IP address with other players at the motel she managed. The player decided to give up on the complaint, and thus, we had closed the case.

The player from California had encountered issues with his winnings from a tournament at Ruby Slots Casino. Despite having completed the playthrough requirements, his winnings had been removed from his account without a clear explanation. The player had claimed that he was not properly informed about the casino's restrictions on certain games. The casino representative had asserted that the player violated the terms and conditions by completing most of the playthrough on a restricted game. We had urged the casino to make essential information, such as restricted games, more visible to players. However, the casino insisted that they had provided all necessary details within their current technology capabilities. As a result, we had been unable to convince the casino to pay the player's winnings and marked the complaint as 'unresolved'.

The player from the United States had reported a delay in her withdrawal of $479 winnings from an online casino. Despite having her withdrawal approved since March 14, 2024, and daily email communication, she had not received her winnings. Upon our request for more information, she had responded affirmatively but did not clarify which questions she was answering. We had extended the response time by 7 days, but the player did not provide further details. Consequently, we were unable to investigate the issue further and had to reject the complaint. Later, the player had informed us that her withdrawal issue had been resolved, and thus, we had marked the complaint as 'resolved'.

The player from the United States had experienced a delay in his withdrawal process at the online casino. Despite having withdrawn successfully before and having passed the KYC verification, his withdrawal had not been processed within the promised timeframe. The player had expressed dissatisfaction over the casino's handling of the situation. After our intervention and communication with the casino, the player confirmed that the withdrawal had been successfully completed. The casino also confirmed the successful transaction. We had marked the complaint as 'resolved' in our system.

The player from the US had had issues with delayed withdrawals at an online casino. After winning on slot games, he had attempted to cash out his winnings multiple times but had not received the funds. He had reached out to the casino's customer support but had not received a satisfactory response. He had had a pending withdrawal of $205 and another for $40. The player had contacted us for assistance, and we had gotten in touch with the casino. After some back-and-forth communication, the player's first withdrawal had been approved, and he had received the funds. However, the second withdrawal had faced delays, and after updating his Bitcoin address, it had also been approved. The player had then successfully received all his winnings. We had marked the complaint as resolved.

The player from California had submitted a withdrawal request less than two weeks before contacting us. Winnings hadn't been obtained up to that day. The player had verified his account and had been approved for withdrawal, but was experiencing delays. He compared the situation to other casinos where withdrawals were instant, expressing dissatisfaction. Eventually, the casino paid him $101.04 via Litecoin. Our team marked the complaint as 'resolved' following the player's confirmation of receiving his winnings.

The player from the US had struggled to withdraw $90 in winnings because the casino argued that she had used multiple free spin coupons without making a deposit, which supposedly voided the withdrawal. The player insisted that their system was designed to allow only a single free spin coupon usage before prompting a deposit. However, after reviewing the supporting evidence provided by the casino, we found that the player had indeed used multiple consecutive free chips. As a result, we were unable to assist further and the complaint was rejected.

The player from the US had cashed out $2,500 after playing a No Rules Bonus. On her second withdrawal request, her VIP3 status had been demoted to Depositor, and her withdrawal request was stuck on pending. Customer service had been unresponsive to her inquiries. We had requested more information from the player and contacted Ruby Slots Casino for clarification. The casino representative had assured the payment would be processed soon. Despite no communication from the casino about her demoted VIP status and delayed withdrawal, the player confirmed she had received her winnings. The issue was marked as 'resolved'.

A player from the US had raised a concern about a delay in receiving their payment from an online casino. The Complaints Team had reached out to the player to understand the specifics of the delay, asking for details such as when the withdrawal had been requested and if the player's account was verified. However, due to the lack of response from the player to these inquiries, the team had been unable to proceed with an investigation or provide potential solutions. The complaint had been rejected for the time being, but the player had the option to reopen it in the future.

The player from New York had difficulty withdrawing $100 out of $1900 won at an online casino. Both she and her husband had accounts at the same casino and she claimed that the transactions were missing. She admitted to playing with bonus money and was aware of the $100 limit for withdrawal. The casino cited multiple accounts and multiple free bonuses as reasons for non-payment. The player denied using multiple free bonuses and insisted on being paid the $100. Despite the Complaints Team's efforts to gather more information for a thorough investigation, the player failed to respond to their queries. Consequently, we had to reject the complaint due to the lack of cooperation from the player's side.

The player from Texas had requested a withdrawal a month prior. Despite having sent multiple verification forms to the casino over the preceding three weeks, the $5000 withdrawal remained pending. Customer service representatives had continued to request resubmission of forms or additional documentation. The player had expressed frustration over the casino's repeated requests for documents and perceived lack of progress in resolving the issue. The casino had responded by stating that the player's bank, Country Club Bank, was a small bank that did not handle international transactions directly, requiring an intermediary, which their payment providers did not support for safety reasons. The Complaints Team at Casino Guru had clarified the situation and extended the timer for the player to provide an alternative bank account for the withdrawal. However, the player did not respond within the extended timeframe, and as a result, the complaint was rejected. The team had thanked the casino for their cooperation and closed the case.

The player from California had won a $23,000 jackpot on Ruby Slots and had been waiting for withdrawal for 2 weeks. Despite having completed all verification steps and having been promised a weekly withdrawal limit of $2500, no payments had been made and the player kept receiving new excuses. After the player had provided additional documents, the casino had promised to expedite the first payment. However, the player had not confirmed receipt of the payment. We had extended the timer for the player's response twice, but received no further communication. Consequently, we had to reject the complaint due to lack of player's feedback.

The player from the Netherlands had been waiting for a withdrawal since January 24th, amounting to three weeks of delay. The player's account had been verified and she had won $109 from a $10 deposit, which she had attempted to withdraw. However, the casino had claimed that they had not received the necessary documents for verification. After several back-and-forths, the casino had finally acknowledged receipt of the documents but had claimed that they lacked a valid method of payout. The player had provided her bank details and after further communication, the casino had confirmed that the payout information was on file and payment was pending. The player later confirmed receipt of her winnings, leading to the resolution of the complaint.

A Polish player participated in a free spin promotion and won $1200. Although the maximum payout was stated to be $100, the player only received their deposit back and none of their winnings from the promotion, despite meeting the playthrough requirements.

The player who was based in California had waited for nearly a month for his winnings to be deposited into his account. The player had claimed to have completed the wagering requirements for a bonus and had been approved for a $100 withdrawal. However, the casino representative had stated that the player had not completed the necessary wagering. After several exchanges, the casino representative had escalated the withdrawal for express disbursal via Bitcoin. The player had confirmed receiving his winnings, and the complaint had been marked as resolved.

The player from California faced difficulties after winning and getting verified. Despite successful cash out approval, he had not received his winnings and was unable to log in to his account. This had been his first withdrawal attempt. The player had won from a free spin bonus and completed the necessary playthrough. After verification and a $10 deposit to a Bitcoin wallet, his withdrawal of $200 was approved but never received. Despite contacting the casino and being given a reference number, he did not receive a response. The player, feeling frustrated, decided to discontinue the complaint process. Consequently, we closed the complaint.

The player from Washington had had an issue with Ruby Slots Casino regarding a withdrawal that had been repeatedly denied. She had claimed to have complied with all the rules and conditions and had not accepted any additional bonuses or promotions. The casino had responded, saying that the player had not completed the necessary wagering requirements for the bonus she had used. After a series of back-and-forth communications, the player admitted that she still hadn't met the wagering requirements. The Complaints Team concluded that the issue was resolved as there was no breach on the casino's part, the casino restored her remaining balance (deposit + bonus funds), and the player was advised to either continue playing to try to meet the wagering requirements or ask the casino to cancel the bonus and refund the deposit.

The player from Arizona had been trying to withdraw a win of $1000 but found her account inaccessible. She had been asked to submit documents and information to the wrong email address, which prevented the withdrawal from being processed. She had provided the necessary information and screenshots to the Complaints Team. The Team had contacted Ruby Slots Casino to inquire about the issue. The casino had clarified that the winnings were from multiple consecutive free chips, which was contrary to the casino's terms and conditions. The player disputed this, stating that the free chips had been added by the casino without her request. After reviewing the evidence, the Complaints Team concluded that the player had indeed requested several free chips with no cash deposit in between. The casino also confirmed that the player's balance had been lost and there were no withdrawable funds in her account. Consequently, the complaint was rejected due to the violation of the casino's bonus terms and conditions.

The player from North Dakota had requested a $700 withdrawal three weeks prior but had failed to receive any specific communication from the casino, despite his multiple attempts. The casino had provided generic responses advising patience. After the player's complaint, the casino had stated that there was no approved method of withdrawal in the account, suggesting the player contact their service department for payout details. The player had claimed to have sent the necessary information twice. The casino then confirmed that they could proceed with Bitcoin as the payout method. However, the issue remained unresolved as the player had not confirmed the receipt of his winnings.

The player from Utah had issues with a withdrawal of $300 from Ruby Slots Casino. The casino had required a $10 account verification fee for Bitcoin withdrawal and promised a 7-10 day processing period, however, the payout was not received. The player's attempts to log back in to contact support had resulted in errors and she believed the casino had intentionally blocked her account. After the player submitted a complaint, we had contacted Ruby Slots Casino for clarification. The casino responded that the player's account had been deactivated due to association with another account that was previously deactivated for valid reasons. Upon reviewing the supporting evidence provided by the casino, we had to reject the player's complaint.

The player from Illinois had requested a withdrawal in November via Bitcoin and, despite repeated interactions with support and several escalations, he hadn't received his funds. The player had made a successful withdrawal in the past and had passed the KYC verification. After two months and with our intervention, the player confirmed that Ruby Slots Casino had successfully processed his withdrawal. The issue was then marked as 'resolved' by us.

The player from Arizona had encountered an issue with his deposit of $50 for a crypto bonus at Ruby Slots Casino, which was not visible in his account. The casino had claimed that he had another account with a balance of $189, but he was unable to access this. Despite numerous emails and refund requests, his account had become inaccessible. The casino had found multiple accounts linked to the player, including one with the disputed deposit. The player had been advised to contact customer service to resolve the issue. After some time, the player managed to access his account through another platform CS and requested the closure of his complaint. We then marked the complaint as resolved.

The player from Georgia had experienced delays in her withdrawal process at an online casino due to address verification issues. She had been promised resolution and a callback but did not receive her payout or any contact from the casino. The casino's representative had explained that the delay was due to the withdrawal method she had used, suggesting an alternative for future transactions. The player disputed this, stating Bitcoin was the only available option at the time. Eventually, she confirmed the receipt of her winnings. We had facilitated the conversation between the player and the casino until the issue had been successfully resolved.

The player from the US is experiencing withdrawal difficulties at Ruby Slots Casino. After fulfilling the required playthroughs and making several withdrawal attempts, the player faced repeated denials with conflicting playthrough requirements from different Casino Support Representatives. The lack of transparency and shifting conditions have left the player frustrated.

The player from Alabama had experienced issues with her withdrawal request from an online casino. Despite having submitted all necessary documents, she was repeatedly asked to provide them again. The verification process had started in October 2023, and out of 10 withdrawals, only one had been successful. The player had switched to Bitcoin withdrawal upon the casino's request but did not receive her funds within the promised 24-hour period. The casino representative had stated that transactions were in process and payments were being made approximately every 10 business days. Despite our team's attempts to resolve the issue, the complaint was rejected as the player had ceased to respond.

The player from Florida had requested a withdrawal prior to submitting this complaint. Unfortunately, her winnings had not been received yet. The player claimed to have submitted all necessary verification documents but her withdrawal was still pending. The casino stated that they did not have the necessary payment information on file and requested additional documents including a complete bank statement and proof of place of birth. The player expressed frustration with the process and requested to receive her winnings via check instead. Despite our efforts to mediate, the player did not provide the requested documents within the given timeframe. Consequently, we had to reject the complaint.

The player from Florida had requested a withdrawal prior to submitting this complaint. Unfortunately, her winnings had not been received yet. She claimed the casino cancelled her withdrawal, citing mixed funds with bonuses, which she disputed. She had initially won up to $3000, which dwindled down to $420 due to continued play. However, the casino allegedly only returned her initial deposit of $34. Despite our efforts to assist, the player failed to provide the necessary communication with the casino for us to investigate further. Therefore, we had no choice but to reject the complaint due to lack of response from the player.

The player from New Zealand has been trying to withdraw $100 from Ruby Slots, facing delays despite successful verification. The casino has also limited communication by blocking them from the live chat function. The player believes the casino is intentionally delaying the process to encourage continued gambling. The player used VPN to access the site which is probihibited by the casino's terms and conditions. Due to that, the account has been blocked but the verification deposit will be returned.

The player from Mississippi is having problems signing into their account on the online casino platform, even after attempting various solutions such as resetting their password and trying different browsers. The complaint was rejected as the player stopped responding.

The player from California has tried multiple times to withdraw winnings from the casino, but the funds have either been returned to the account or met with no response. The player demands either the original deposited funds or the $8000 winnings, and has threatened legal action. The complaint was closed as the player stopped responding.

The player from the US had been struggling to withdraw his winnings of $3,700 due to ongoing issues with account verification. Despite having sent multiple emails attaching their ID to different URLs provided, the casino still insisted on additional verification. The player claimed that the casino's communication had been inefficient and promises of escalation had not been fulfilled. After our intervention, the casino assured that the first payment was issued and the second one should be processed soon. However, without the player's confirmation of receipt, we were obliged to reject the complaint.

The player from South Africa was experiencing difficulties logging into her Ruby Slots account and had been unable to establish contact with the casino. We attempted to assist by asking for more information about her situation and extending the complaint's timer. However, due to the lack of response from the player to our messages and queries, we had no choice but to reject the case. We were unable to conduct further investigations or offer potential solutions without the necessary information.

The player from the US had used a VIP Chip at an online casino, met the playthrough requirements, but had his withdrawal request denied. A manager withdrawal was supposedly made via Bitcoin, but the player did not receive it. He also noted that the casino did not have a maximum payout limit. At that time, he could not log into his account. The player had confirmed that his winnings were accumulated entirely from a free bonus and his account had been successfully verified. However, the casino representative had stated that the withdrawal was paid in full at the maximum cashout value for the free chip in play at the time of the win ($100) and delivery was confirmed in Blockchain Explorer. The player disputed this, claiming he had not received the payment. The complaints team had requested evidence from the player that his Bitcoin address was linked to his player account, but the player did not respond. As a result, the complaint was rejected due to the player's lack of response.

The player from Connecticut had initially complained about a delayed withdrawal from an online casino. After extensive communication between the player, us, and the casino, it was discovered that the player's deposit had been denied by the issuing bank, and thus, his withdrawal request was also denied. The casino had clarified that the player's winnings were not withdrawable due to the failed deposit. The player confirmed this after checking with his bank and realizing that his deposit had never gone through. The issue had been resolved with the player's understanding and acceptance of the situation.

The player from California had utilized the free bonuses on a casino website and won. However, he claimed the casino refused to pay out, citing a change in their stated bonus policy. After reviewing the player's transaction history, we found that he had redeemed multiple no-deposit bonuses after a single deposit. As per the casino's terms and conditions, players could not redeem multiple free bonuses consecutively without a real money deposit in between. Therefore, the player was deemed ineligible for the withdrawal of his winnings. Despite his initial dissatisfaction, the player eventually understood and accepted the casino's policy.

The player from Florida had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting his complaint. The payment hadn't been processed at that time. The player had been struggling with the account verification process and had found it difficult to reach Ruby Slots Casino's customer service. After the Complaints Team intervened, a casino representative had explained that the automated system did not accept the player's documents. The player then manually submitted the documents. The casino had also raised a concern about multiple accounts from the same household, which was resolved after the player clarified that his wife also had an account. The casino then verified the player's account and processed the withdrawal. The player had confirmed the receipt of his funds and the issue was resolved.

The player from Nevada, after having met all the play through requirements from a no deposit bonus, struggled to verify his identity for withdrawal. We had attempted to assist him, but due to his lack of response to our communication attempts, we were unable to investigate further. As a result, we had no choice but to reject his complaint.

The player from Colorado noticed an error with her birthdate on her Ruby Slots account, which seemed to be causing issues with her withdrawal request of $1400. She contacted the casino several times with no resolution and believes this issue may result in rejecting her documentation. The casino representative confirmed that the player's DOB was successfully updated, and she was asked to provide further details and document(s) in specific form via email for a successful withdrawal. The complaint was later closed/rejected for the complainant's non-responsiveness, non-cooperation, and per her request.

The player from Mexico had received a $200 bonus but was required to wager $8000 to withdraw $100. He reported that the casino had been preventing withdrawals due to too many bonuses being played, despite him not having requested these. Upon investigation, we discovered that the player had redeemed two no-deposit bonuses without a deposit in between, which was a violation of the casino's rules. As a result, the player's winnings could not be paid out. The complaint was rejected for this reason.

The player from Colorado complied with verification procedures and won approximately $1290, of which a withdrawal request for $1190 was made. The withdrawal request was cancelled by the casino management without explanation, and despite repeated emails questioning why, the player has received no answer. We ended up rejecting the complaint because the casino provided evidence supporting its claims.

The player from Canada suggests that after sharing identification documents and bank details for a withdrawal, an unauthorized attempt was made to access her bank account. We rejected the complaint since the player failed to provide us with the requested evidence.

The player from the US won $940 on Ruby Slots Casino and requested a withdrawal. However, despite repeatedly contacting customer service and being told various processing times, they have yet to receive their money after one month. Player stopped responding to our question therefore the complaint was rejected.

The player from Washington has requested account closure due to his gambling problem. Despite numerous emails and chats, he was informed only Vince Rossi can close his account. Still, Vince stopped responding to his requests. The complaint was closed as the player stopped responding.

The player from California has over $800 in winnings that the player can't withdraw from Ruby Slots due to KYC verification issues. We rejected the complaint because the player stopped responding and cooperating in the resolution of this issue.

The player from Washington requested a withdrawal prior to submitting this complaint. Unfortunately, their winnings haven’t been received yet. The player later confirmed that the withdrawal was processed successfully, therefore we marked this complaint as resolved.

The player from Texas requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. The payment hasn’t been processed yet. We ended up rejecting the complaint as the casino presented evidence indicating that the player mixed funds while playing with the bonus.

The player from the United States won $50 from a no deposit bonus but is unable to contact the casino for verification and withdrawal purposes. The live chat support is not working, and emails have gone unanswered for over a month. Even though we assumed that the issue had been resolved, the player hadn't responded to our additional questions regarding the withdrawal, so we decided to reject the complaint.

The player from Texas has requested a withdrawal prior to submitting this complaint. Unfortunately, their winnings haven’t been received yet. After a closer examination, we ended up rejecting this complaint as there is sufficient evidence the player has breached the casino's bonus terms and conditions by claiming multiple No deposit bonuses without a real money deposit between them.

The player was experiencing an unspecified issue with his bonus winnings. After the casino representative provided an explanation, the player accepted it as well as the casino's decision, so we consider the complaint resolved.

The player's withdrawal was delayed for less than 2 weeks. The casino informed us that the winnings were paid out. The player did not react to our questions whether he received his payment or not, so we rejected his complaint.

The player ''RIEFERRR'' took a sign up bonus - no deposit free chip , and won 100USD. They got their account, as well as their BTC address, verified, however, later on, the player got blocked on live chat and their withdrawal got declined. The player requested new withdrawal several times, but each time, it got declined. There was no response from the casino.

The player experiences problems with withdrawals. They had 98USD pending in account (the player played with a free chip), but the casino claimed their minimum withdrawal was 100USD. The player was requested to continue in play until they would reach the minimal withdrawable amount. The player requested a withdrawal once their withdrawable balance reached 270USD. Consequently, the player provided valid new documents that had been requested for KYC. One of the requested documents was a utility bill, however, the player claimed they were living in rural area where no bills were paid, but provided other documents to confirmed their address. The casino declined the documents (different bills and bank statements - each with different house addresses), closed the player's account and confiscated winnings from the no deposit bonus. The player provided explanation for different addresses and the casino was asked to provide evidence that could support accusations towards the player. There is no response ever since

The player from the United States has requested a withdrawal three weeks prior to submitting this complaint. Unfortunately, winnings haven’t been received yet. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from California requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. The player has won from 5th consecutive free bonus with no subsequent cash deposits, and the complaint was closed as "rejected".

The player from the US was experiencing difficulties withdrawing his winnings. After looking into the issue, it was discovered he used two free chips in a row without making a deposit, thus breaking the Terms and Conditions.

The player struggled to withdraw his balance as his request kept getting rejected. Several other withdrawal requests were also rejected for unspecified reasons. The player confirmed the successful withdrawal approximately 3 weeks after the casino representative was invited to the thread. The complaint is resolved.

The player from the United States was experiencing difficulties withdrawing his sign-up bonus winnings. The player has used 2nd consecutive free chip with no cash deposit in the account history. The complaint was closed as "rejected".

The player from the United States is experiencing difficulties withdrawing his winnings due to limited availability of payment methods. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from the US requested a withdrawal, but it has not been processed. After a closer examination, we ended up rejecting this complaint as there is evidence that the player provided incorrect information about himself while registering.

The player from the United States has requested a withdrawal one month prior to submitting this complaint. Unfortunately, winnings haven’t been received yet. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player's withdrawal is delayed for over a month. Although it seems as though this issue has been resolved, the complaint was rejected because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Canada is experiencing difficulties withdrawing his winnings due to ongoing verification. The player later confirmed that the withdrawal was processed successfully, therefore we marked this complaint as resolved.

The player from the US requested a withdrawal over 2 weeks ago prior to submitting this complaint. It has not been processed yet. The casino replied and stated that the bonus the player used to accumulate the winnings had a maximum cashout of $100, but also that the player had an outstanding notice on their account regarding a chargeback that the player had previously agreed to pay at the point of their next withdrawal. Consequently, the complaint was rejected.

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

The player from Ukraine requested a withdrawal two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. It has not been processed. The complaint was rejected because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player ''PHILLYSLIM98'' from Georgia,USA complained that the casino declined her payment twice without stating any reason. The player was requesting a withdrawal via bitcoin. There were no more updates since then.

The player from the US has requested a bitcoin withdrawal, but it has not been processed yet. A few days later the player shared an update with us - their winnings were finally paid out to them so we closed the complaint as resolved.

The player from US requested a withdrawal a week ago prior to submitting this complaint. It has been pending since. The player later confirmed that the withdrawal was processed successfully, therefore we marked this complaint as resolved.

The player from the United States has deposited money into a casino account but the funds seem to be lost. The casino admitted they made a mistake and credited the missing amount to the player's casino balance.

The player from the United States is experiencing difficulties withdrawing her winnings due to ongoing verification. The casino confirmed the current documents were sufficient and the player confirmed the withdrawal was successful.

The player from the US was accused of opening multiple accounts and breaching the casino's Bonus T&Cs. The casino decided to confiscate the player's winnings. Based on the evidence provided, we ended up rejecting the player's complaint.

The player from United States cannot withdraw her winnings due to incomplete KYC. The casino requested additional documents to verify the player's account. The player failed to send the necessary documents and cooperate in resolving the issue. In addition, she asked us not to contact her again in this matter. The complaint was rejected.

The player's withdrawal was delayed due to long verification process. Shortly after submitting the complaint, the casino informed us that the player had successfully passed the verification. The player confirmed she had received her winnings one week later. The complaint was closed as 'resolved'.

The player 'Reef1982' was told that they would receive a refund of their deposited funds, but then had issues making contact with the casino and didn't receive any payment. The casino unfortunately would not respond to the mediator.

The player from United States has requested a withdrawal two months ago. It has been pending since. After some communication with the casino, the player stopped responding and we were forced to reject this complaint.

The player from United States has requested a withdrawal eight weeks ago. It has been pending since. After 1 month of back and forth communication with the casino representative, the player was able to receive his funds and the complaint is resolved.

The player from the United States has requested withdrawal a month ago. It has been pending since. Even though we assumed that the issue has been resolved, without confirmation from the player, we were forced to reject this complaint.

The player from South Korea has requested a withdrawal four months ago. It has been pending since. 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 Finland is experiencing difficulties verifying his account. According to the information provided by the casino, the player breached the rules of bonuses with playing on roulette, which is excluded from bonuses. Hence, we were forced to reject this complaint.

The player from United States was complaining about lengthy withdrawals. A week later, the casino representative confirmed the payment had been successfully processed and sent to the player's bank account. Even though we assumed that this issue had been resolved, without a confirmation from the player, we were forced to reject this complaint.

The player from United States has been struggling to receive winnings for four weeks due to incomplete account verification. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from United States has requested a withdrawal more than a week ago. It has been pending since. 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 United States is dissatisfied with a difficult and excessively complicated verification process. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Austria is experiencing difficulties withdrawing his No Deposit bonus winnings due to ongoing account verification. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player won some money and in the order to withdraw it, she needed to make a deposit. While depositing, she received a bonus of 25 free spins and accepted it. Once she did that, she had lost her previous winnings due to mixed funds and her requested withdrawal got denied. When the mediator contacted the casino about this issue, they never responded to them and the complaint remained unresolved.

The player's winnings were divided into small payment installments of 2500$ and paid to her regularly. During 6 months, she had troubles a few times and after the casino had payout most of her winnings, she decided to gamble the rest of the money.

The player from the US had experienced issues with site accessibility after making a withdrawal request. Despite having received an email confirmation of her withdrawal, she hadn't been able to access the casino website from any of her devices. She discovered that her IP address was blocked, as she had been able to access the site using a VPN. After communicating with the Complaints Team, her issue had been resolved, and she confirmed that she received her payment. However, the issue with the IP address block remained, even though the player decided to stop using the casino.

The player from Indiana had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting his complaint. His money hadn't been received yet. The Complaints Team had suggested that the delay could have been due to unfinished KYC verification or a high volume of withdrawal requests, and had advised the player to wait at least 14 days before submitting a complaint. However, the player confirmed that he had received his payment on the third day after his withdrawal request. Consequently, we marked the complaint as 'resolved'.

The player from California had reported a delay in receiving his Bitcoin withdrawal from an online casino. He had stated that the casino had approved his request, but he hadn't received the payment despite being a KYC verified user with previous successful withdrawals. The player later confirmed that he had received his payout, and the issue had been resolved. We had subsequently marked the complaint as 'resolved' in our system.

The player from the United States has requested a withdrawal three weeks prior to submitting this complaint. Unfortunately, winnings haven’t been received yet. After we contacted the casino, its representative promised to look into the matter to assist the player. In the next few days, the player informed about finally getting the payment, therefore we closed the complaint as resolved.

The player from South Africa is complaining about the lengthy verification process. The casino replied and stated that they had received the documents and that the player's account was now verified. The casino further asked for a payment method to use to process the player's withdrawal. The player provided this, and after some time, received their payment. Consequently, the complaint was closed as 'resolved'.

The player from United States had been waiting for her withdrawal for over a month before she submitted the complaint. The casino representative informed us the payment was processed and sent to the player's Bitcoin wallet. Two weeks later, the player confirmed she received the payment. The complaint was closed as 'resolved'.

The player from United States has requested withdrawal a month ago. Unfortunately, the payment hasn’t been received yet. After some delays the player was able to receive her funds and the complaint is resolved.

The player from Pennsylvania experienced a delay in receiving funds via coindraw, despite being promised instant processing. After three days, the casino was uncertain about when the funds would be available. The issue was resolved when the player confirmed receipt of the funds.

The player from Texas had requested a $2500 withdrawal seven weeks ago after winning with a "no rules" bonus. Despite completing and obtaining approval for all verifications, the payment had not been received, and customer service had failed to expedite or escalate the issue as promised. Ultimately, the issue was resolved successfully, and the payment was received by the player. The complaint was marked as 'resolved' in the system.

The player from California had requested a withdrawal of $100 two weeks ago from Palace of Chance Casino, but had received no updates. Despite daily attempts to contact the support team, he had received no response and his access to live chat support was eventually blocked. His account had already been verified on February 15th, and he had made one deposit into the casino. He was informed on March 20th that his withdrawal request had been approved, but he was not paid out. After contacting the casino again, they had requested him to verify his account once more. Following the re-verification and our intervention, the player reported that he was finally paid out.

The player from the Netherlands had attempted to withdraw $500 over two separate transactions in January. After a month's delay, the $200 withdrawal had been denied without any clear reason, despite the player's multiple inquiries and repeated documentation submissions. The player had provided all necessary documents for account verification, including ID and proof of address. However, the casino had claimed they did not receive these documents and could not proceed without a valid method of payout. After a series of exchanges, the casino finally acknowledged the receipt of necessary documents and approved the withdrawal. The player had received part of her winnings but reported that some amount was still missing. Despite this, she had requested to close the complaint, expressing fatigue over the process.

The player from Washington had experienced an issue with a delayed $2000 payout. Despite having completed the necessary paperwork twice and having received approval for the payout, the player had not received their bitcoin withdrawal after 6 weeks and 15 days of waiting. After we had requested clarification from the casino and the player, the player confirmed receipt of their winnings. We had then marked the complaint as resolved.

The player from the US has been experiencing a delayed withdrawal approval since submitting a request in June 2023. They provided all necessary verification documents, and despite receiving approval, their withdrawal was later denied without explanation. The player resubmitted a withdrawal request and was seeking help in resolving the issue. We got in touch with the casino representative, and after he checked the issue internally, the player was informed about her withdrawal finally processed from the casino's side. After that, they confirmed receiving the money, so we closed the complaint as resolved.

The player from the US requested a withdrawal in April. It has not been processed yet. After our intervention, we were able to help the player to get their winnings. The player confirmed they received the funds in the end. The Player’s complaint has been resolved successfully

The player from Japan was struggling to complete her account verification. We contacted the casino and got the information that the player hadn't added a valid payment method when requesting for a withdrawal. The player shared her Bitcoin address so the casino representative was able to add this to her account. The winnings were finally paid out, so we closed the complaint as resolved.

The player from Texas has requested a withdrawal prior to submitting this complaint. Unfortunately, their winnings haven’t been received yet. The player has confirmed receipt of the payment, so we closed this complaint as resolved.

The player from the United States has requested her first withdrawal almost one month prior to submitting this complaint. Unfortunately, winnings haven’t been received yet. After our intervention, we were able to help the player to get their winnings. The player confirmed they received the funds in the end. The Player’s complaint has been resolved successfully.

The player from Pennsylvania submitted a withdrawal request less than two weeks prior to contacting us. The casino informed us they paid the winnings and the player. The player confirmed he received the winnings.

The player from Switzerland has requested a withdrawal three weeks prior to submitting this complaint. Unfortunately, winnings haven’t been received yet. The player has confirmed that he has received the payment, so the complaint was resolved.

The player from United States had been waiting for their two withdrawals to be processed for more than three weeks before submitting the complaint. Four weeks later, the player informed us that the withdrawals had been processed and successfully received. Sťažnosť bola uzavretá ako „vyriešená“.

The player from California requested a withdrawal via crypto on July 1st, but despite being approved, they had not received their winnings after 19 days. The casino exceeded its maximum processing time and did not adhere to the fast withdrawal claims promoted on its website. The player confirmed passing KYC verification and meeting all bonus playthrough requirements. The issue was resolved as the player eventually received the withdrawal.

The player from Texas had used a code to get 60 free spins with a max cash out of $100 at Prism Casino. After fulfilling all the requirements, the player had been left with $100 but the casino only paid $50. They later claimed that they had the wrong rules in the system. We had contacted the casino for clarification and they acknowledged an error on their part. An additional payment was issued and the player confirmed receipt of the full $100. The player had also expressed dissatisfaction with the casino's decision to change their status to 'skilled player' after the issue was resolved. The complaint had been marked as 'resolved' by us.

The player from South Carolina had had two missing withdrawal requests dating back to 11/27/2023. Despite having constantly communicated with the casino for a month, she had always been told to check back in 48 hours but ultimately no resolution had been provided. After the player's complaint, we had advised her to wait for another week for the second payment as the casino might have applied weekly/monthly withdrawal limits. The player later confirmed that all her payments had been received. Consequently, we had marked the complaint as 'resolved' in our system.

The player from the United States is having trouble making a withdrawal. Despite being assured via live chat that there are no problems with the account, the funds keep being returned to the play account without any explanation or email notification from the casino. After our intervention, we were able to help the player to get their winnings. The player confirmed they received the funds in the end. The Player’s complaint has been resolved successfully.

The player from United States had been struggling to withdraw their winnings for three weeks before submitting the complaint. The complaint was resolved. The player received their winnings 2 months later.

The player from New York had requested a withdrawal from Wild Vegas Casino on June 27, which was initially denied. After resubmitting details for a bank wire, the casino claimed that the payment was sent on July 29, but subsequently informed the player on August 9 that the payment was still under review. The player confirmed that the funds were received in his account after a delay that was attributed to a third-party payment system. The issue was resolved successfully, and the complaint was marked as 'resolved' by the Complaints Team.

The player from Virginia had faced persistent withdrawal issues with the casino. After his initial withdrawal request for $627.77 in bitcoin was approved two months prior, the casino had required multiple verification methods, including another deposit and repeated sending of ID photos. Despite finally switching to a bank wire withdrawal, the transaction was still not processed after over a month. The issue was resolved after the player received $260.50 via bank wire and confirmed an additional $100 was available for withdrawal from his casino account. The complaints team marked the issue as resolved.

The player from Texas won $4500 and capped at $2500 for withdrawal. Despite the withdrawal being approved and all verification requirements being met, the player was experiencing issues with finalizing the transaction. Later, the player confirmed that the withdrawal was successfully paid. The complaint is resolved.

The player from New York has been waiting for a withdrawal of $50 for two weeks. Despite contacting the casino several times and being assured the request was in the queue, the player's withdrawal request has not been processed. We got in touch with the casino representative and he promised to assist in the matter. A couple of days later, the player informed us that the winnings were received so the complaint was closed as resolved.