Unibet Casino Review

The player from Norway had initiated a withdrawal of 7,877€ from his Unibet account on February 10 and was experiencing delays. Despite multiple attempts to get answers from Unibet's customer support, he needed this issue to be clarified and resolved immediately. The player had confirmed that the withdrawal was still pending and it was an issue related to his account only. His winnings had been accumulated without an active bonus. We had advised the player to contact Unibet's Help Center directly as Unibet Casinos had decided not to publicly address any of our open cases due to GDPR restrictions. We marked this complaint as unresolved due to the casino's unresponsiveness.

The player from the UK had used his partner's phone to bet on an online casino, then won and withdrew 600. However, the online casino had refused to pay out his winnings, claiming that the use of his partner's phone was against their policy. The casino had confiscated all his winnings due to the rule violation. We had explained to the player that it was a player’s responsibility to use only allowed payment methods and this could only be checked during account verification, which was usually done when a withdrawal was requested. Despite our efforts to assist, the player's complaint was ultimately rejected due to the violation of the casino's policy.

The player from Luxembourg had questioned whether the MGA casino was obligated to follow the MGA Responsible Gaming Code and the possible repercussions if it didn't. They were also contemplating about asking for a refund of deposits made. The player had not self-excluded from the casino, but cited several other factors from the MGA code that they believed the casino had not adhered to. After reviewing the player's concerns, we advised them to contact the MGA directly as they were the licensing authority. The player reported that they had already contacted MGA, but received no response. As the player did not have an active self-exclusion with any MGA-licensed casino, we were unable to assist further, leading to the complaint being declined.

The player from the Netherlands had claimed that mandatory addiction prevention measures at the casino had failed, leading to their losses. They were then seeking compensation. However, the player had not provided sufficient information or evidence to support these claims. Despite repeated requests from our team for more details, the player's responses had remained vague and unhelpful. Consequently, we were unable to proceed with the case and had to close it without further investigation due to lack of cooperation from the player's side.

The player from Poland had submitted a withdrawal request less than two weeks prior to contacting us. Winnings hadn't been obtained up to that day. The Complaints Team had advised the player to wait for at least 14 days after requesting the withdrawal before submitting a complaint, as it was quite usual for withdrawals to take some time due to KYC verification or high volume of withdrawal requests. After 10 days, the player confirmed that the casino had verified his account and he had received his winnings. Consequently, we marked the complaint as resolved.

A Gamstop registered player from the UK was able to set up, deposit, and play on Unibet, despite informing the operators about his Gamstop status. The player, who also had an account with their sister site Red32, lost £3000 over a month due to this. He claims errors in his personal details verification and accuses Unibet of a lack of duty of care. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Japan has been experiencing a three-month delay in withdrawal. We marked this complaint as unresolved because the entire Unibet Casinos group has chosen not to provide public comments on any of our open cases.

The player from the Netherlands struggled with a gambling addiction and deposited over 7000 while under the influence of alcohol. He had previously asked Unibet to stop him from gambling and requested a refund of his deposits. The player believes the situation could have been prevented with timely intervention.

The player from New Zealand has been waiting for over 106 days for a response from the casino's support team regarding submitted documents. We marked this complaint as unresolved because the entire Unibet Casinos group has chosen not to provide public comments on any of our open cases.

The player from Poland reports that his Unibet account is suspended and he is unable to access his money. Even after sending a selfie with ID card and utility bill for verification, his account remains suspended.

The player from UK is unable to withdraw £230 from their Unibet account after moving out from England. They are being requested additional proof of address which the player cannot provide due to the relocation, despite their betting fair when they were residents of England.

The player from Sweden has been experiencing significant delays in their withdrawal requests involving large sums. The casino requested additional information and then ceased communication, providing repeated automated replies.

The player from Hungary requested a withdrawal. They were asked for re-verification, but their account was closed after uploading the required documents. They no longer have access to their account or any information about their deposited money. Although the casino was not able to provide us with the necessary details and information to fully review the case on our side, it is regulated by one of the better and more reputable regulators, so we advised the player to submit a complaint to one of the casino's ADRs or the regulator directly and provide us with a confirmation. However, the complaint was later rejected because the player stopped responding to our messages and questions.

The player from Hungary has difficulty withdrawing his winnings from Unibet Casino. After transferring a considerable amount to his bank account, he was informed that he would only receive a portion of it, with the casino claiming a violation of their policy. We were forced to reject this complaint because the player focused only on sports betting.

The player requested withdrawal and said he'd provided every document for verification immediately, but his withdrawal still wasn't approved more than a month later. He said all requests were pending. There was no reaction from the casino and no more updates since then.

The player complained that 10 days passed since her withdrawal but despite that she'd been verified, she didn't get paid, and the casino support just kept telling her to wait. There was no reaction from the casino and no more updates since then.

The player complained that the casino had sent winnings to the wrong bank account, which didn't exist anymore. The bank returned the funds back to the casino, however, more than 3 weeks later, the casino still hasn't confirmed any reception of the returned funds.

The player from Sweden has requested a self-exclusion back in 2019. Unfortunately, the inquiry was ignored and the player was able to access the account. We marked this complaint as rejected since the incident occurred more than four years ago and gathering of evidence and construction of a timeline would be extremely challenging, if not impossible.

The player's unable to play any game as the casino blocked his access to them. The complaint has been closed as 'unresolved' because the casino failed to reply and cooperate in resolving the complaint. There was no progress even two weeks after the casino was notified about the player's complaint.

The player from Italy was experiencing difficulties verifying her account as the documents she submits are not accepted. The casino has not responded to the complaint, and it was closed as "unresolved".

The player from Germany is experiencing difficulties withdrawing his winnings due to ongoing verification. Unfortunately, there was no response from the casino so the complaint was closed as 'unresolved'.

The player's account got blocked for a routine check. The casino responded and stated that they had already provided a final response to the player, and had provided information regarding submitting a complaint to the relevant dispute resolution service. As it seemed that the casino would share no further information with us, we also recommended that the player contact the ADR. The player stopped responding at this point, so the complaint was eventually rejected.

The player complained that Unibet would't accept their proof of payment via Neosurf voucher. Despite accepting deposits with this payment method, the casino refused to accept transactions history and a receipt as sufficient, therefore, the player couldn't withdraw their winnings. The casino didn't cooperate on resolving this complaint.

A player from Morocco had their account closed while having more than 300€ balance still there. The casino asked for verification documents, the player sent them, but later, he requested a refund of the funds blocked in his account and because withdraval via bank transfer had been disabled he gave them other withdrawal method options. The casino did not respond ever since.

The player's balance was voided as he was self-excluded in a sister casino. The complaint was closed as we are waiting for the regulator's decision. The complaint was closed as the player stopped responding.

The player from the UK has been blocked due to active self-exclusion in a sister casino. Since the player didn't self-exclude from this casino directly, casinos do not share the same license, he is not registered at Gamstop and self-exclusion from one casino isn't applied to all associated websites, the player was free to create an account here. Therefore the casino was free to close it whenever as long as the remaining balace was returned to the player. Since there was no legal rule that would bind the casino to refund deposits in such cases, and the remaining balance was paid out, we were forced to reject this complaint.

The player complained about issues with withdrawing funds. The request got cancelled and the technical support couldn't provide any answers. The player's account had been verified. The casino didn't react to this complaint.

A player from Kyrgyzstan complained about the casino telling him it was not possible to transfer withdrawal via the same method he had used for depositing. However, there were issues with optional payment methods too. The casino refused to react to this complaint.

The player from Netherlands is claiming a full refund as he was able to register multiple accounts as minor and later being able to reopen an account which has been self-excluded previously. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Germany requested a withdrawal of a significant amount a few days ago, but the payment hasn’t been processed yet. The player received his winnings, so we marked this complaint as resolved.

After the player requested a withdrawal, the casino asked them to provide different documents for verification, which they did. Later on, their account was closed, their winnings were confiscated and their deposit was returned to them. The casino claimed that according to their terms and conditions, they were allowed to do so any time they decided to. The complaint was left without any response from the casino and it remains unsolved.

The player deposited €2000 after verifying her account, but she is not able to play or withdraw this amount. We rejected this complaint, because the player refused to send documents needed for verification.

Player said that he had asked the live chat about the reason why only part of his withdrawal request was approved and the other part was pending. He was told that his account needs to be verified further and they needed to call him too. The casino called him and asked him some questions for verifications, however, the player said he had failed to answer correctly one question and his account got blocked. Then his pending withdrawal was canceled and his deposit was returned to him. The casino replied by saying that the player had breached the terms and conditions but he denied these accusations saying he won fairly and that the casino had been seeking for reasons why not to pay him his winnings. No more reaction from the casino, no more update since then.

The player made three deposits of $85, $90, and $20. He tried to withdraw some of his winnings but first, he needed to send some documents for verification. He sent those requested documents to the casino, but they wouldn't accept them. The casino was supposed to contact the player about an update via email and they did, one year later!!! They asked him to provide the same documents for verification again. During that year, the player closed his Entropay account and lost any hope to ever receive his winnings that he won so fairly. In the complaint, he also mentioned that he would like the casino to refund him on at least one of his deposits through a Neteller account. There is no update on this complaint.

The player from Norway had been experiencing difficulties withdrawing her funds due to limited availability of payment methods. After some time, player has contacted the oewner sof the casino and, in a week, the issue has been resolved.

The player from Canada had an active self-exclusion in a sister casino. He believes that he should not have been able to register a new account with Bingo.com Casino. Since the player confirmed receiving refund, we closed the case as 'resolved'.

The player from Finland was experiencing difficulties withdrawing her winnings due to ongoing additional verification. The player was found to have multiple accounts, but was allowed to keep one of these open and continue playing. There was some confusion regarding outsatnding documents for verification, but then the casino looked into the player's account and confirmed that the account had been verified and that all issues were resolved. The player was then able to make their withdrawal and received their payment.