Slotastic Online Casino Review

The player from California had been unable to withdraw his winnings of $400 from Slotastic Online Casino. His account had been closed due to an alleged security violation following an issue with his previously approved identification. Despite having sent multiple verification documents, the player was unsuccessful in resolving the issue. He claimed that he had been a member of the casino for a month, had played only slot games, and had used LTC for deposit. Afterward, the player didn't follow up with our requests for more information, therefore the complaint was closed.

The player from Finland had faced issues with account verification at an online casino as his proof of address was continuously rejected. Despite having submitted various bank documents with matching details to his casino profile, the casino had refused to verify his account without providing a reason. We, the Complaints Team, had tried to resolve the issue by contacting the casino several times, but received no response. The casino, which was operating without a valid license and not referring to any ADR service, left us with no gaming authority to turn to. The complaint had been marked as 'unresolved', possibly affecting the casino's rating. Later, the casino claimed that the player hadn't initially provided a proof of address and that after receiving it, they processed the payout. However, the player did not confirm receiving the winnings. The complaint was rejected due to lack of confirmation from the player.

The player from the United States had had a deposit issue with Slotastic Casino. Despite having made a successful LNBTC transfer following an email promotion, the casino hadn't credited the player's account, stating that the payment had failed. The player had provided screenshots as proof. Eventually, the casino had credited the deposit to the player's account but hadn't honored the promotional bonus attached to it. The player had been dissatisfied with the casino's handling of the deposit and the missing bonus. After our investigation and communication with both parties, we had closed the complaint due to the resolution of the deposit issue and the casino's discretion over the bonus distribution.

The player from North Carolina had difficulties withdrawing his winnings from an online casino due to additional requirements for providing personal information such as ID, bank statements, bills, and account numbers. He found this unfair as he wanted the funds returned to the same account he used for deposit. We explained that these KYC procedures were essential to ensure funds were sent to the rightful owner and advised him to cooperate with the casino. However, despite extending the complaint resolution timeline, the player failed to respond, leading to the rejection of the complaint.

The player ''Joshsexton'' complained about the casino's verification process. After requesting a withdrawal of their winnings from a sign-up bonus, the casino asked the player to provide certain information to verify their account. Allegedly, the player provided the requested information multiple times, complying with the casino's requests, but still failed to pass the verification process. The casino did not provide any clear explanation to the player, nor a public statement on the player's complaint.

The player from Georgia is unable to cash out the amount they won by using free spins as the casino argues that the player has used more than one free spins coupon which is against the rules. The complaint was rejected because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from United States is experiencing difficulties verifying their account. The casino decided to accept the player's documents and verify the account, so the complaint was successfully resolved.

The player from Kazakhstan was experiencing difficulties withdrawing his funds. Two weeks later, the casino representative informed us the payment had been processed. Even though we assumed that the issue had been resolved, without a confirmation from the player, we were forced to reject this complaint.