BC.Game Casino Review

The player from Mexico had had issues with BC Game casino regarding two withdrawals made on March 12th that had not been credited to his account. Despite having provided a March bank statement and screenshots as evidence, the casino had requested the most recent bank statement, which the player could not provide as the month was still ongoing. The player's account had been fully verified since February 22nd and the winnings had been made with real money, not bonuses. After a series of exchanges, the casino had agreed to contest the payments with their merchant and eventually refunded both payments back to the player's account. The player had confirmed that the money had been refunded and he had been able to withdraw successfully. The issue had been successfully resolved.

The player from Germany expressed dissatisfaction with BC.Game Casino for allowing him to deposit and gamble despite a previous self-exclusion request. As a result, he suffered personal financial losses and has requested the reimbursement of €5000, which is the difference between all the deposits and withdrawals made.

The player from India had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting his complaint. The payment hadn't been processed yet. After the player's complaint, the casino had requested a video proof and bank statements from the player. The player complied and provided the necessary documents. The casino was then able to recover the funds and refunded them back to the player's account. The issue had been successfully resolved with the cooperation of both parties.

The player from India had reported a problem with receiving his winnings from the casino. The Complaints Team had advised him that withdrawal delays could have been due to KYC verification or a high volume of withdrawal requests, and suggested waiting for at least 14 days after requesting the withdrawal before submitting a complaint. The casino had requested more details to assist the player. However, the player did not respond to the team's messages and questions, which led to the complaint being rejected due to lack of further information.

The player from Japan had had an issue with a deposit not reflecting in his casino account, despite his bank having confirmed the transaction. After several live chat consultations, the issue had remained unresolved. We had advised the player to contact his payment provider for an investigation, as the casino had had no control over the issue. The casino had requested additional details about the deposit for further investigation. Upon receipt of this information, the casino had confirmed that the transaction had been successfully processed and credited to the player's account. The player had acknowledged that the deposit was successfully made. We then marked the complaint as having been resolved.

The player, originally from Ukraine and residing in Germany, had encountered issues with the KYC procedure while trying to withdraw $10K winnings from BC.Game Casino. Despite multiple attempts and communication with the casino, the player had been unable to upload necessary identification documents due to a document limit set by the casino's website. The casino had advised the player to email the required documents for verification. However, the player did not respond to this suggestion, which led us to reject the complaint due to lack of further communication from the player.

The player from Canada was unable to resolve a game issue in the casino. Afterward, he experienced an 'account risk' error while logging in and received no response from the casino. There's $113 remaining in his balance.

The player from the United States had deposited over $20,000 in crypto into his B.C. Game account. Despite his balance having stood at $10,000, his withdrawal attempts had been suspended. The player had completed the KYC process and had provided necessary account details, but the issue had persisted. The player had suspected that his U.S. residency might have caused the suspension, as B.C. Game's terms of service had prohibited services for U.S. residents. The casino had confirmed that the player's account was locked due to a violation of their terms of service, as the player had used a VPN to access the site. We had concluded that the casino was within its rights to suspend the account and void the player's winnings due to the breach of terms. The complaint was therefore rejected.

The player from Japan was experiencing difficulty with depositing funds into his online casino account. Despite having transaction reports on his VEGA Wallet, all his attempts to transfer funds to the casino had been cancelled. He claimed the funds had been transferred to an unknown user without his permission. The Complaints Team clarified that they could not intervene in issues involving payment providers or misuse of bank details. As such, the player was advised to involve the police if he believed his funds were stolen and misused. The issue remained unresolved from our end as it fell outside our jurisdiction.

The player from Estonia had been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, her payout hadn't been received at that time. The Complaints Team had advised her to wait at least 14 days after requesting the withdrawal before submitting a complaint. The casino had confirmed that the withdrawal was processed. After extending the complaint resolution period by 7 days, the player confirmed that she received her winnings. The issue was subsequently marked as resolved by the Complaints Team.

The player from Japan had reported an issue regarding a bank transfer deposit that was not reflecting in his casino account despite his bank balance having shown a reduction. The player had provided screenshots and had waited over 48 hours, but the issue had persisted. He had made several deposits in the past without any delays. After he contacted his bank about the issue, the player confirmed that he had been successfully refunded. The issue had been resolved and the complaint was subsequently closed.

The player from Japan was facing difficulties depositing money into the casino. Although the funds were deducted from his bank account, the deposit did not reflect on the casino platform. He also expressed dissatisfaction with the casino's live chat support. We advised the player to contact his payment provider for an investigation and suggested he should not deposit more funds until the issue was resolved. However, due to lack of response from the player to our messages and queries, we had to reject the complaint. The player still had the option to reopen this complaint in the future.

The player from New Zealand had an issue with an online casino, where she had been unable to close her account due to the unavailability of the self-exclusion button and lack of response from the casino's support team. She had been losing money and was tempted by promotional emails. She had requested account closure and sought compensation for the period from the time the closure request was made. The player claimed to have a gambling problem and felt that the casino had failed to act promptly upon her request for self-exclusion. The casino, however, argued that the account had been closed immediately after the player admitted her gambling problem. Our team had concluded that without explicit admission of gambling addiction and request for self-exclusion from the player prior to March 14, we were unable to assist in recovering the lost deposits. Therefore, the complaint was rejected.

The player from Japan had attempted a withdrawal from BCGAME, but had encountered an error in the memo entry. The player had corrected the error and received a refund from the destination, but the refunded amount did not reflect back in his BCGAME account. The player had reported this issue to the casino's support team. After a series of discussions and exchanges of evidence, the casino had acknowledged the problem and promised to process the refund within 48 hours. However, this timeline was not met, which caused further frustration for the player. Ultimately, the casino had provided a code for the player to claim his refund on their bonus page. The player had confirmed receipt of the refund, but expressed dissatisfaction with the casino's support. We had successfully mediated the complaint and it was then marked as 'resolved'.

The player from India had made a 10000 INR deposit through UPI which was confirmed by the bank, but the amount had not been credited into the casino account. The player had exhausted the casino's complaint procedure and had submitted the required documents, however, the issue remained unresolved. After a lengthy back-and-forth with the casino and the complaints team, the casino requested additional proof, and after the player had provided this, the issue was eventually resolved and the funds were credited to the player's casino account.

The player from Kenya had an issue with BC.Game casino after he had successfully deposited 520 USDT and won an additional 532 USDT. Despite having passed verification checks, his withdrawal section had been suspended without a clear explanation. He had been waiting for a resolution for over 48 hours. The casino representative clarified that the account had been temporarily locked for the KYC process and was restored once the process was completed. The player later confirmed that his issue had been resolved. We then marked the complaint as 'resolved' in our system.

The player from Argentina had had an issue with her deposits at an online casino. She had been unable to use her funds for playing or withdrawing, and the casino had not listed Argentine Pesos as a currency option. Furthermore, her attempts to seek assistance via live chat and email had been unsuccessful due to delays and an incorrect email address on the casino's website. After the intervention of the Complaints Team, the player had confirmed that the issue was resolved. The complaint was then marked as 'resolved' by the team.

The player from Kentucky had won .013 btc but encountered an issue when the withdrawal reversed back to the casino after reaching her Cashapp. The player had deposited $1074 in the previous 7 days and felt that he had not been adequately compensated for his loyalty and the inconvenience caused by the reversal. He had expressed a feeling of exploitation by the casino, especially due to his gambling addiction. We had advised the player to inform the casino about his gambling problem and to apply for self-exclusion. However, the complaint was eventually rejected due to lack of further response from the player.

The player from Portugal had lodged a complaint against BC.Game Casino, alleging that despite making the casino aware of his self-confessed gambling addiction and requesting account restrictions, the casino had closed his account without implementing protective measures such as deposit restrictions or stake limits as per their terms of service. The player claimed to have lost $4,008 since making the casino aware of his addiction. The complaint team had requested evidence of the player's communication with the casino, which was provided. The casino, however, maintained that they had not received any such communication from the player until March 2nd, at which point they closed the player's account in line with responsible gaming practices. After a thorough review of all provided evidence and a call with the casino team, the complaint team concluded that the player's account had been closed promptly after the casino was directly contacted about the gambling issue. The complaint was closed as 'rejected' due to insufficient evidence to warrant a refund of the player's deposits.

The player from Vietnam had reported a $3000 unauthorized withdrawal from their account. They suspected it occurred during a maintenance period. The player was unable to reach support and believed their account security on BCGAME's platform might have been compromised. Despite their account being verified and using a known withdrawal method, the player's issue could not be resolved by the Complaints Team. This was due to the nature of the issue falling under the jurisdiction of the police and the player's bank, beyond the legal authority and resources of the mediator. Therefore, the complaint was rejected.

The player from India had requested a withdrawal prior to submitting this complaint. Unfortunately, his winnings hadn't been received yet. After contacting the casino's support team multiple times, he was advised to send an email with his account details. The casino responded that his account had been restored, but it was unclear if the withdrawal issue was resolved. Despite our efforts to reach out to the player for an update, we received no response. Consequently, we were unable to investigate further and the complaint was rejected.

The player from Japan had deposited money, and met the betting conditions, but couldn't withdraw the winnings. The casino had requested KYC (Know Your Customer) but rejected the documents the player submitted. The player admitted to having used her mother's ID for KYC, which was against the casino's policy. Unfortunately, the player had used up all the winnings in the process. We had advised the player to always use her own ID and deposit method when dealing with online casinos to avoid such issues in the future. We rejected the complaint due to funds being lost.

The player from Ukraine was struggling to withdraw funds from an online casino, despite having passed both regular and advanced KYC checks. The withdrawal option had been blocked without any clear reason given to the player. Upon the player's complaint, we had contacted the casino on his behalf, and the casino had responded that his account was back to normal after the KYC process and that he had set a self-exclusion for three months. We had asked the player to confirm this information, but without his response, we were forced to close the complaint.

The player from Germany was dealing with withdrawal issues after depositing 660 USDT to BC.game and playing Crash and Limbo games. He encountered an error message that stated withdrawal and tip permissions had been suspended and was advised to complete KYC verification. Despite our attempts to communicate with the player and help resolve the issue, the player did not provide the necessary information. Therefore, the complaint was rejected.

The player from Italy, after getting approval from the support chat, had opened a new account on BC.Game. The player had deposited 1,000 USDT and won 997 USDT but had faced withdrawal issues due to KYC procedure, as there was another account registered in the player's name. The casino had refused to return both the winnings and the deposited money. After reviewing the case and communicating with the casino, we found that this had been the player's third time requesting a new account, which was considered abuse due to multiple bonuses being redeemed. As a result, the complaint had been rejected due to the player's violation of the casino's policy on multiple accounts.

The player from India had made a deposit on 07 Feb 2024. The money had been deducted from his bank, but did not appear in his casino account. He had sought resolution as the casino support was not being helpful. We had advised him to contact his payment provider and had forwarded his complaint to the casino. Despite our efforts to assist, the player did not respond to our messages and questions, which hindered further investigation. Consequently, we had to reject this case due to the lack of player's cooperation.

The player from Mexico had mistakenly sent a withdrawal from BC.game to Bybit with an incorrect memo. Bybit had managed to recover the funds but returned them to BC.game. The player had reported that BC.game was not crediting his account with the returned funds. After a series of communications between the player, the casino, and the complaints team, the issue had been resolved. BC.game had provided a code for the player to claim his refund. The player had expressed satisfaction with the resolution and the complaint had been marked as 'resolved'.

The player from Germany had experienced issues with a delayed payout from the casino via USDT Tether on the Ethereum Blockchain. He felt that the casino's customer service had been ignoring his inquiries. However, our team had advised him that withdrawal processing could take time and suggested waiting for 14 days before escalating the issue. Later, the player informed us that he had received the disputed amount. Consequently, we had marked the complaint as 'resolved'.

The player from Cuba had deposited 59.99 xlm into BC.GAME casino but it hadn't been credited to his account. He had provided video evidence and opened a support ticket, but had received no resolution within the stated deadline. The casino later explained that the issue had occurred due to the absence of a memo while making the deposit. After addressing this, the casino had credited the deposit to the player's account. The player had confirmed the resolution of the issue, leading us to mark the complaint as 'resolved'.

The player from Argentina had reported that $80 was missing from his account due to alleged hacking. He had stated that he hadn't shared his login information with anyone and his account had been verified. He had been playing at the casino for about four years and his last deposit had been $100. The casino had denied responsibility for the issue. We had informed the player that we couldn't assist with matters related to cybercrimes, which fell under the jurisdiction of the police and his bank. Despite extending the response period, the player didn't provide further information, leading us to reject the complaint.

The player from Latvia had been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, his payout hadn't been received yet. The player had expressed frustration with the casino's delay in processing the withdrawal and believed it was an intentional tactic to make him lose his balance. Despite attempts to communicate with the player for further information, the player did not respond. As a result, we were unable to investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from India had faced issues with depositing funds into his casino account. He had deposited a total of 3000 Rs and had provided valid proof of transaction, but the funds did not reflect in his account. We had suggested he contact his payment provider to investigate the issue, as it was a complex process that could take approximately a month. The complaint was left open for a month for the player to update us. However, due to the player's lack of response to our messages and questions, we were unable to further investigate and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Brazil had complained about the bonus mechanism at the casino, stating that the terms had been unclear and misleading. He had been unable to use his bonus, worth R$450, despite his continued gambling. The player confirmed that his withdrawal had been processed successfully and he no longer had any issues. We then marked the complaint as 'resolved'.

The player had requested self-exclusion from the casino due to a gambling problem. However, the casino had failed to enforce this, having allowed her to continue gambling after three days. After intervention from the Complaints Team, the issue had been successfully resolved. The player's account had then been appropriately closed in line with her self-exclusion request.

The player from India had deposited 500 INR using UPI payment, but the funds were not credited to his casino account despite the transaction being successful. He had made several unsuccessful attempts to address this with the casino and his bank had confirmed the transaction was successful. The player had provided the necessary documents and screenshots as proof of transaction. The casino, after reviewing the provided documents, had claimed that the transaction was not received by the merchant. The casino then asked the player to get an official letter from his bank, after which they would investigate further. However, the issue had been resolved and the player was credited with the amount, hence, the complaint was marked as 'resolved'.

The player from Japan had been unsuccessful in withdrawing his winnings for over two months, despite several attempts to contact the casino's support. He claimed his account was verified and that he had accumulated his winnings through real money, not bonuses. However, the casino stated they could not locate an account associated with the details provided by the player. The player insisted on his claim and provided screenshots as proof. The casino representative claimed the screenshots were fake and that the player's original account had a balance of only $10 and a self-exclusion request. The player denied this and asked for help in resolving the issue. The Complaints Team reviewed all the provided evidence and found inconsistencies in the player's claims. The account with the substantial amount of funds the player claimed to own did not exist, and the evidence provided was either tampered with or insufficient. Consequently, the complaint was rejected.

The player from Nigeria had deposited an amount of 49,000 which had not been credited to his account yet. The Complaints Team had advised him to contact his payment provider, as the casino had limited influence over such issues. The casino had asked the player to provide the Order ID and a bank statement showing the transaction. However, the player failed to respond to these requests. As a result, we could not further investigate and had to reject the complaint. The resolution process was hindered by the player's lack of cooperation.

The player from Japan had reported a problem with a deposit that wasn't reflected in his casino account. Despite multiple deposits having been made successfully in the past, this particular deposit made on 1/13 was not credited. The player had attempted a refund procedure with his bank but was unable to proceed due to the account status. The issue was eventually resolved after the deposit was processed.

The player from Nova Scotia had reported fraudulent activity on his account, stating that an unidentified party had accessed his account, unlocked funds, and made several withdrawals. Despite his attempts to communicate with the casino's support, he had received no response and was unable to access his account due to a verification request. We had attempted to investigate his complaint, asking several clarifying questions and extending the response deadline by 7 days. However, as the player did not respond to our messages, we were unable to further investigate and had to reject the complaint.

The player from India had lost his 2-factor authentication code for his online casino account on BC.Game. Despite there being an option to regain the Google 2FA code, he had not received the new code via email. The player had confirmed his account was previously verified and had provided his Aadhar card and other details for identification. However, the casino had requested transaction details for security reasons, which the player had struggled to provide due to the use of multiple bank accounts and the transactions being made to various UPI receivers. The casino had maintained that these details were necessary for security and user safety. The player had been unable to provide the requested transaction history, leading to an inability to resolve the issue. The complaint was subsequently rejected due to lack of response from the player.

An Indian player had faced issues while trying to verify his gameplay on the casino website. After a loss of $89,000, he had attempted to verify the game's 'Provably Fair' feature but encountered errors and received inadequate support from his VIP host. He questioned the fairness of the game and requested help to validate his gameplay. We had asked the player to provide his complete game history to address the casino regarding their Return to Player (RTP). However, the casino had resolved the issue, enabling the player to verify his bets. As a result, we had closed the complaint as 'resolved'.

The player from India had reported a security issue with his account in an online casino. The casino had responded that the player held multiple accounts and several self-referral accounts to earn commissions, which was against their policies. Consequently, all of the player's accounts had been locked and could not be reopened. We had sought further clarification from the player, but due to a lack of response, we were unable to proceed with the investigation or provide potential solutions. The case had therefore been rejected.

The player from Brazil had encountered issues with the KYC process required to withdraw his $97 winnings from an online casino. Despite numerous attempts and interactions with the casino's support, his account verification failed due to alleged age requirements. The player had provided all necessary documents, including ID and proof of residence, but the verification process had repeatedly failed. After multiple exchanges with the casino and the complaints team, the player managed to log into his account and complete the basic verification. However, he was still unable to withdraw his winnings. The complaints team had contacted the casino for clarification. Eventually, the player was able to successfully withdraw his funds and requested the closure of his complaint. The issue had been resolved satisfactorily.

The player from the Philippines had been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, his payout hadn't been received by that time. The player had issues with the KYC verification process, where his documents were initially deemed blurred by the casino. After resending his documents and communicating with the casino and us, the player was finally able to process his withdrawal. The issue had been successfully resolved with the player confirming he could then withdraw his winnings.

The player from the United Kingdom had experienced delayed withdrawals on BC Games. Despite having provided extensive evidence of his wins, including screenshots and videos, the casino had refused to process his withdrawals. The casino allegedly owed him around $177.77. The player also mentioned that he had stopped playing and had asked the casino to remove him. He had refused to use the term 'self-exclusion', fearing it would be used against him. However, after a thorough examination, the Complaints Team had found the provided screenshots insufficient as proof of wins. The transactions in question were not documented in the player's gaming history, and his bets were not deducted during the reported session, leading to the conclusion that no wins were achieved. As a result, the complaint was rejected.

The player from Poland had created a ticket about a cryptocurrency exchange issue but had not received a response. Additionally, KYC documents had been rejected by the casino’s partner service. The player had claimed that his exchange service made a mistake in the refund amount and his account was subsequently blocked. After providing evidence, the casino had argued that the transactions didn't match and the issue lay with the player's exchange service. After reviewing the information, we concluded that this issue was related to the player's exchange service and not the casino. Consequently, the complaint was rejected.

The player from Belgium had reported large losses in BC.Game Casino and accused the casino of lacking responsible gaming practices that would recognize and help manage his gambling problems. The player requested a refund of his losses. He had informed the casino about his gambling issues and had not initiated self-exclusion. He had also sought legal counsel, claiming that BC.Game Casino operated unlawfully in Belgium. His account was later restricted due to regional restrictions, and he was unable to access his bonus funds. We requested evidence of the player informing the casino about his gambling problems, but he was unable to provide it. As a result, we could not argue for a refund of his lost deposits. We advised the player to request self-exclusion from the casino. However, the player did not respond to our messages, leading us to reject the complaint.

The player claimed they hadn't received a Christmas bonus due to alleged multiple accounts. They insisted on having only one account, but admitted to having additional accounts for streaming or moderation, approved years ago. We attempted to investigate the case, asked for supporting evidence and inquired about the possibility of other people using the same IP address or device. However, due to the player's lack of response, we were unable to proceed with the investigation or provide potential solutions. The case was therefore rejected, but the player retained the option to reopen it in the future.

The player from Argentina deposited 2000 pesos and won additional 6000, but the attempt to withdraw was blocked, including the initial deposit. Customer service has not responded to the player's inquiries. The casino joined the resolution of the complaint stating that the player's account is not blocked in any way. The player did not respond to this statement, so we had to reject the complaint.

The player from Romania had experienced an unexpected account closure at BC.Game casino due to a misunderstanding about his age. Even though the player had stated that he was 18 and ready for verification, the casino had ceased communication and prevented him from logging in for identity verification. The casino had provided evidence showing that the player had previously claimed to be 17, leading to the account lock for KYC purposes. Despite our attempts to mediate, we were unable to assist in resolving this case due to the player's failure to provide the necessary age verification.

The player from India had been waiting for three months to receive a withdrawal of 2,500 from BC.Game. Despite the withdrawal appearing successful on the platform, the player had not received the funds in their bank account and the transaction appeared untraceable. The player had provided all necessary documents and expressed his disappointment, choosing to withdraw his complaint. Consequently, we had rejected the complaint as per the player's request.

The player from Ukraine had faced difficulties withdrawing his winnings from an online casino after successfully betting on NBA games. Despite having complied with the casino's requests for detailed information and two-step verification, he had received no response for over two weeks. After he submitted his complaint to us, and following our intervention, the player finally received his winnings. The issue was then marked as 'resolved' in our system.

The player from Germany had alleged that his payouts had been sent to an unknown Bitcoin Gold wallet. He had claimed that four transactions had gone to an unknown wallet and the casino had been unable to assist as they were not liable for transactions. The casino had responded by stating there had been no unusual activity detected on the player's account. They had advised the player to complete advanced KYC for account verification. However, the player had denied requesting a KYC and claimed he had always used copy and paste from his wallet for withdrawals. Despite attempts to resolve the issue, the player had failed to respond to further inquiries, leading to the complaint being rejected.

The player from Louisiana had deposited money to BC.Game using VET and after her account was verified, the casino restricted her from playing due to her jurisdiction. The Complaints Team had reached out to the player for more information and clarification. The casino had offered a refund, asking for a VET or USDT (TRC-20) address to process it. However, the player did not respond to the team's inquiries or provide the necessary details for the refund. Consequently, the complaint was rejected due to lack of response, but it could be reopened if the player decided to resume communication.

The player from India deposited INR 50000 which was deducted from their bank account. However, the casino denies receiving the funds, even though the transaction was done via their provided QR code. Both the support team and the VIP host have refused to assist.

The player from Portugal attempted to withdraw 106 LTC (equivalent to 6900 euro) from an online casino, but received a 'permission denied' message. The player also states that the casino's live support is very slow in responding. The complaint was resolved as the player got paid out.

The player from Finland had their withdrawal of $450 rejected and was asked for KYC verification. Despite completing this weeks ago, the player's withdrawals remain locked and inquiries to live support result in requests to wait for team responses. It's been over a month of communication with no definitive action from the casino. The complaint was resolved as the player got verified.

The player from Canada had experienced a technical issue while playing a slots game, where he had won C$272 during a free spins round. The game had frozen and required a refresh, after which the winnings disappeared and the play was not recorded in the transaction history. The casino had investigated the issue and the player reported that the situation had finally been resolved.

The player from California had experienced an issue with an ATOM deposit transaction at BC.Game Casino. Despite the transaction having appeared as completed, the deposit had not been credited to the player's account. The player had contacted the casino's support multiple times without success. The casino had asked for transaction details to investigate the issue. After several interactions, the casino discovered that the player's location had been restricted on their platform. As a solution, the casino refunded the deposit to the player's wallet. The player confirmed receipt of the refund, successfully resolving the issue.

The player from Argentina had claimed that deposit bonuses were initiated without any explicit limits in the terms and conditions. The player had only received $100 but was claiming $3300 in winnings. The player had requested similar treatment to another refunded player. We had extended the complaint response time by 7 days, however, due to lack of confirmation from the player, we had to reject the complaint. The casino representative had informed us that the coupon was redeemed and used.

The player from Nigeria reported a deposit issue. He had deposited 1,000 ₦ which hadn't appeared in his BC.Game account, despite being debited from his bank account. We had advised the player to contact his payment provider for investigation, as the casino had limited capability to intervene in this case. The casino also requested additional details for further assistance. However, due to the player's lack of response to our messages and questions, we were unable to proceed with further investigation. The complaint was consequently rejected.

The player from Germany had faced an issue with BC.Game where his attempted withdrawal of 548 BCD to his Crypto.com deposit address was rejected and returned to the casino. Despite having been aware of the issue since October 27th, BC.Game had not credited the refund back into the player's account. After a series of communications between the player, the casino, and the Complaints Team, the casino had committed to checking the transaction and refunding the amount as soon as possible. The player confirmed that the refund was finally received, thus resolving the complaint.

The player from India made a deposit of 2000 INR via the UPI payment method. Despite the bank confirming the transaction as successful, it was not credited to the casino account and his attempts for resolution failed. The complaint was resolved as the player received his deposit.

The player from Peru had had withdrawal permissions removed from his account eight days prior. Despite having provided all the requested information, he had still been unable to access his $300 and hadn't received a response from the casino. The player had insisted that the funds were not from bonuses or profits. However, the casino had claimed that the player had multiple accounts and was involved in fraudulent activities. We had requested evidence from the casino, which had confirmed their allegations. Therefore, the complaint had been rejected as the player had breached the casino's terms and conditions.

The player from Costa Rica with an account at BC.game is expressing concerns about the lack of accountability from the platform. Despite showing signs of problem gambling and continuously being in a jurisdiction where gambling on the site is not allowed, no action was taken to self-exclude their account or request KYC verification. The player suspects these requirements were deliberately ignored due to frequent and significant deposits made. The complaint was rejected based on the player's request.

A player from Ukraine attempted to deposit 1000 UAH via a selected payment system. However, after the transaction, only 200 UAH were displayed in the account even though the full amount was withdrawn from the bank. The complaint was rejected as the player stopped responding.

The player from Mexico 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 him that it was common for withdrawals to take a few days or weeks to process, and suggested waiting at least 14 days after requesting the withdrawal before submitting a complaint. However, the casino had stated that the player's account was locked due to a request for permanent self-exclusion, with no balance or pending withdrawals at that time. The player failed to respond to further inquiries, leading us to reject the complaint due to lack of information.

The player from Nigeria had deposited a total of 4840 Naira, but this amount had not been credited to her Casino account. We had advised her to contact her payment provider to investigate the issue and had asked for additional details to assist with the investigation. The casino had also requested specific information to help resolve the matter. However, the player did not respond to our further inquiries, thus we were unable to continue the investigation. Consequently, the complaint had been rejected due to a lack of communication from the player's side.

The player from Japan had participated in an online casino tournament but did not receive the expected prize money. He had also raised concerns about the tournament's legitimacy, as no leaderboards or rankings had been published. The casino had claimed the tournament was a network event managed by Evolution, who had verified that the player did not qualify as a winner. The player had doubted this, requesting proof and a comparison with his score. However, the casino later offered the player $10 as an apology for the delay in resolving the complaint, which the player had refused, insisting on a proper investigation of his points and the leaderboard. After extensive communication, the complaint was closed as unjustified, as the casino had provided sufficient evidence that the player did not qualify for a prize in the tournament.

The player from Japan had an issue where his deposited funds had not been reflected in his casino account. The player later confirmed the resolution and the complaint was subsequently marked as 'resolved' by the team.

The player from Peru had been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, their payout had not been received yet. The player's withdrawal permission had been denied by the casino, and he had claimed that it was not a KYC issue as he had already completed the basic and advanced KYC verification. The casino representative had insisted on the need for KYC verification and later raised concerns about discrepancies in the player's KYC and account details. Eventually, the casino had provided evidence of fraudulent activity on the player's account, leading to the rejection of the complaint.

The player from Florida has had his account compromised following a large win. Despite his attempts to prove his identity, he is encountering difficulties resolving the issue with BC.Games. The complaint was rejected as the player created multiple accounts thus breached the casino terms.

The player from Ukraine encountered issues with withdrawal attempts. He attempted the KYC several times with different documents and eventually had it approved after contacting support. However, the withdrawal remained disabled until proof of address was provided, which was first declined. Then, the player's account was locked, and the email communication from customer support stopped. The complainant confirmed that the issue was resolved approximately 2 weeks after we contacted the casino and that the disputed funds were successfully credited to the payment method used. The complaint is resolved.

The player from Indonesia had been unable to withdraw his winnings due to the casino's claim of an incomplete KYC process, despite him having evidence of KYC verification. After the player had communicated his issue, the casino had required him to complete both Basic and Advanced KYC. Once these were completed, the casino had unlocked the player's account, enabling him to make a successful withdrawal. We had then marked this complaint as 'resolved' following the player's confirmation of a successful withdrawal.

The player from Argentina won approximately 2000 USD in cryptos using free spins at a casino. However, they are experiencing technical issues while logging back into the game, thus preventing them from using the winnings within the required timeframe. The complaint was rejected as the player stopped responding.

A player from Canada with high-volume wagering at BC.Game casino has had his bonuses cancelled and withdrawals locked, after being told his betting style was not approved. Despite complying with instructions for altering his betting and completing additional KYC processes, the player has been unable to access winnings and bonuses, totaling around $250k USD. His account is now blocked. Casino has provided us with information about a discrepancy in prize listing of a currency the player has used to wager. Casino has confiscated funds that were accumulated using that currency and reinstated the player's account. We believe the steps the casino took were justified and rejected the complaint.

The player from Brazil requested self-exclusion from BC game casino but later regretted the decision due to a temporary state of distress. However, the casino insists on respecting the initial decision and has denied reopening the account, citing their self-exclusion policy. The player is frustrated by the casino's refusal and argues that the rules should not be strictly applied in such special circumstances. The complaint was rejected as the player's request is unjustified.

An Argentinian player had been locked out of their account after the casino requested verification. Despite providing the necessary information, they had yet to hear back and remained unable to login since depositing 133 USD. After the player's complaint was escalated, the casino stated they couldn't find an account associated with the provided email address. Further investigation by the casino revealed over 15 accounts linked to the player, all under CPA deals, breaching the casino's terms and conditions. As a result, the casino decided not to unlock any of the player's accounts. The complaint was closed as "rejected".

The player from India successfully deposited and made a bet. However, the account became inaccessible after an attempt to withdraw winnings, despite successful verification. The player has contacted the casino multiple times but the issue persists. The issue has been resolved successfully.

The player from Nigeria had reported that his deposited amount of 10000 naira along with a bonus of 30000 naira was locked and inaccessible at BC.Game Casino. The casino had requested additional information to clarify the situation, specifically a screenshot. However, the player did not respond to the complaint team's inquiries. Due to the lack of response and information, we could not proceed with the investigation, which led to the rejection of the complaint.

The player from Pakistan had her Bc.Game account, which contained about $2700, blocked after she received a tip in INR from another player. Despite having been verified and seeking help for over 4 months, her issue had remained unresolved. She had joined the casino 16 months prior and her account had been blocked about 8 months ago. The player had accumulated her balance through a game named Crash. The casino had claimed that the player's account was locked due to multiple self-referrals and the tipping account had provided multiple IDs for verification. After a thorough investigation, we concluded that the player had breached the casino's terms and conditions by creating multiple accounts and taking unfair advantage of bonuses. Therefore, we rejected the complaint as unjustified.

The player from Michigan, who acknowledged having a gambling problem, had requested multiple times for account closure, but the casino had ignored these requests, leading to further deposits. After the complaint was submitted, the casino offered a full refund of $650, which the player had accepted. The refund was processed in crypto. The player had confirmed the receipt of the refund, and the complaint was marked as resolved.

The player from India had multiple accounts in BC game and was trying to delete his old account. The Complaints Team, after reviewing the casino's Terms and Conditions, found that creating multiple accounts for the purpose of collusion or abuse of service was prohibited. They sought further information from the player to clarify the situation, but the player failed to respond within the given timeframe. As a result, we were unable to further investigate the issue and the complaint was rejected.

The player from Mexico had deposited 250 into his casino account, but the amount was not credited. Despite the casino's attempts to resolve the issue and the player's efforts to contact Bitso and his bank, the problem persisted. Due to the player's lack of response to our messages and questions, we were unable to further investigate and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Japan is unable to withdraw his winnings as the casino's withdrawal service is not available in his country, despite his past complaints about the same issue. The complaint was resolved as the casino converted the player's balance so he could safely withdraw it.

The player ''askeras.hunt'' complained about multiple malfunctions going on in his account. He claimed that while playig his funds disappeared suddenly and the balance became zero. In history of bets it appeared as if the player had bet on sports but he denied betting on sports. The casino didn't reply to his email. Later, he made another deposit and won, however, the bet was again attributed to sports and was voided. The casino told him that their anti-fraud department had checked this, couldn't find anything suspicious, but would continue checking. No information from then on.

The player ''BR_D_ZY'' deposited through GCash payment provider but the amount never arrived to his casino account. After requesting proof of the transaction the casino concluded that they had never received the funds, however, player's payment provider claimed the transaction had been successful. No information from then on.

The player complained that casino had blocked his account and confiscated balance. The casino said it was due to player's request and the account had been reopened only for withdrawal purposes. After successful withdrawal, player's account got blocked again. Also after rechecking account's balance due to this complaint the casino said that there was no balance in the account. There is no info from then on.

The player from Peru has an issue with withdrawal delay and logging back into their online casino account. The account triggered a message stating 'account verification required', blocking the player from accessing their account and funds.

The player from Brazil had had issues with his withdrawal from an online casino. After he had met the wagering requirements, his winnings were revoked and only the initial deposit of $129 remained. He had provided video proof of this situation. The casino had explained that the player had used a deposit bonus, and according to their terms, after fulfilling wagering requirements, the maximum amount that could have been withdrawn from the bonus was equivalent to the bonus amount itself. The player had disagreed, stating that these terms had not been clear at the time of accepting the bonus. The Complaints Team had reviewed all evidence and concluded that the player's winnings should have been honored, but the casino had maintained its position. The complaint had been closed as 'unresolved' and the player had been advised to contact the Curacao Interactive Licensing Authority. The casino later informed us that a resolution had been made with the player, and when this was confirmed the complaint was closed as "resolved'.

The player from Latvia had reported a pending withdrawal issue with an online casino. Despite having made multiple successful withdrawals in the past without KYC verification, the casino had requested it for the latest transaction. The player complied but saw no change in the withdrawal status. The casino representative then confirmed that the withdrawal had been refunded on October 9th. Without confirmation from the player, we had been compelled to reject the complaint, though it could be reopened anytime.

The player from Brazil has requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. The payment hasn’t been processed yet. The casino responded and stated that the player needed to complete the verification procedure and would then be able to make a withdrawal. The player finished the verification, and after some time was able to withdraw the funds. Consequently, the complaint was resolved.

The player from Argentina had submitted a withdrawal request less than two weeks prior to contacting us. Winnings hadn't been obtained up to that day. The player had been trying to withdraw 4626 JPY from an online casino but had faced difficulties due to issues with the payment provider Payoneer. The casino insisted that the delay had been caused by Payoneer not processing the refund. After a lengthy back-and-forth, the casino decided to credit the refund to the player's account, even though they hadn't received the refund from Payoneer yet. The player confirmed that the balance had been restored and the issue had been successfully resolved.

The player from India deposited money and won, however, he was not able to withdraw his winnings due to KYC procedures, even though he had fulfilled the wagering requirement. He also stated that the platform's first deposit bonus was not properly implemented and that he had issues with customer support's response times and quality of service. The complaint was closed as the player stopped responding.

The player from Nigeria faced difficulties in accessing his account even after verification, which blocked him from accessing his funds. Despite our team's attempts to understand the issue and assist, the player did not respond to our messages and questions. Due to this lack of communication, we were unable to further investigate the issue. Consequently, the complaint was rejected.

The player from Brazil had deposited BRL 24,500 and won an additional BRL 8,000. However, the initial deposit had been locked and was not available for withdrawal. The player had confirmed that he activated a bonus and wagered his entire deposit. Despite completing both basic and advanced verifications, he had been unable to withdraw his balance. We had requested more information about the activated bonus to determine if any wagering requirements were unmet. However, the player did not respond to our inquiries, which left us unable to resolve the issue. Consequently, the complaint was rejected.

The player from Canada had encountered an issue with BC.Game Casino. After making a deposit and receiving a matching bonus, she had fulfilled the required wagering constraints and attempted to withdraw her winnings. The Casino had reduced her balance to only $368.45, which the player suspected to be a system bug following a recent website upgrade. Despite multiple communications with customer support, the issue had remained unresolved. The Complaints Team had reviewed the case and asked the casino for clarification. The casino had claimed that the player's winnings were capped at $100 as per their terms and conditions. However, the player had provided screenshots showing no such limit was mentioned. The Complaints Team had concluded that the player's winnings should be honored, but the casino maintained its position. The complaint was eventually marked as 'unresolved'. The casino later informed us that a resolution had been found with the player, and the complaint was marked as 'resolved' upon confirmation.

The player from Japan attempted to withdraw from BC.Game, but unexpectedly their account disappeared. They are unable to log in or reset their password as they cannot access the necessary authentication code. The complaint was closed as unjustified due to a breach of the casino's terms and conditions - multiple accounts or collusion and casino system abuse, as well as bonus abuse. The casino acted correctly and in accordance with its terms and conditions, and we accept its decision.

The player from the United Kingdom had requested a withdrawal prior to submitting this complaint. Unfortunately, his winnings hadn't been received yet. The player also reported that he had been unable to log into the casino and that his emails were being ignored. Despite attempts from the Complaints Team to gather more information and extend the response time, the player did not provide any further details or responses. As a result, we were unable to investigate the issue further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Brazil had deposited 300 reais, and had increased the amount to 600 reais, but was unable to withdraw any money. The player had contacted customer support but received no response. After submitting a complaint, the player confirmed that their balance had been unlocked and they were able to withdraw their winnings. Despite some intermittent issues with the game blocking and unblocking the balance, the player confirmed that everything had been okay. We had marked the complaint as 'resolved' in our system.

The player from Switzerland submitted a withdrawal request for $5k that failed due to an internal error. The casino advised that it would be resolved in 6-24 hours, however, after six days, the issue persists, with the player receiving no updates or resolutions. Even though we assumed that the issue had been resolved, without a confirmation from the player, we were forced to reject this complaint.

The player from Brazil had won approximately 340,000 Reais but faced account blocking and a verification request. All required information had been sent to support, yet there had been no response nor access to the account since 08/23. The player had mainly played slots and made several deposits over 10,000 Reais. However, due to the player's failure to respond to our queries, we were unable to investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Botswana deposited a sum of cryptocurrency into their account and despite it showing as withdrawn from their wallet, it hasn't appeared in their casino account. It's been 3 days since the support team promised to resolve this in 12 hours. Player’s complaint has been resolved successfully.

The player from the UK was asked to go through KYC, which was done four days ago, and he has not heard from the KYC department yet. It appears that this issue may have been resolved, but without confirmation from the player we are forced to reject this complaint.

The player from Japan won a $100,000 USD jackpot but had their withdrawal rejected due to unfinished KYC procedures on BC.Game. The casino responded and informed us that they had updated their verification process, and asked the player to verify themselves again. The player submitted their documents and after some time the casino confirmed the account was verified and the player could withdraw their winnings. The player made the withdrawals and confirmed the complaint was resolved.

The player from Virginia is disputing unauthorized transactions on BC Game Casino. Despite having regained access to their trust wallet, they claim the casino has refused to investigate the matter. The player believes there are 75 unauthorized transactions. The complaint was rejected due lack of evidence received from the player.

The player from Japan won $3,500 in a tournament, but the casino credited the prize in Japanese yen to a new account instead of awarding it in USDT (the currency used). The player has no means of withdrawing in yen and requests the winnings be transferred to the USDT account. The complaint was rejected as the player received his tournament price and refused to use the offered payment method to withdraw his balance.

The player from Germany had complained about an incorrect withdrawal from BC.Game where he only received 0.1% of his requested amount. Instead of receiving 911,60662 Monero (equivalent to ~122000€), he had received 0,91160662 Monero (~122€). The remaining amount hadn't been credited back to his account. After we had contacted the casino, they acknowledged an error on their part and rectified it by making four additional transactions. The player had confirmed receipt of the funds, resolving the issue. However, he had expressed dissatisfaction with having to open a complaint to get the issue resolved.

The player from India is unable to withdraw winnings due to unresolved AML issues. Despite following instructions provided by support, and completing KYC verification, the issue remains and the player cites unhelpful support. The player stopped responding to our questions and comments, so we rejected the complaint.

The player from Germany has submitted a withdrawal request less than two weeks prior to contacting us. The player later informed us that he received his winnings. Therefore, we closed the complaint as resolved.

The player, who identified as a gambling addict, had an issue with an online casino, BC.Game. The player had claimed that their account (ID 19020839) remained active despite their request for self-exclusion due to their gambling addiction. The casino had responded that the account was linked to a Binance hot wallet, which they could not block as it might not have been used exclusively by one person. The casino also mentioned that the player's IP address was potentially a VPN. The player disputed these claims and demanded a refund for the $2000 lost after their self-exclusion request. After a closer examination, we ended up rejecting this complaint due to substantial evidence indicating that the player deliberately established multiple accounts with inaccurate or omitted information. The player initiated contact with live chat support and raised concerns about gambling problems only after exhausting their balance in their most recent account. We advise the player to reach out to the gaming authority if they wish to pursue their complaint further.

The player from Thailand is unable to withdraw his winnings due to a prior self-exclusion request. Although he successfully deposited and played, his attempts to withdraw were denied. Player’s complaint has been resolved successfully.

The player from India has requested a withdrawal seven days prior to submitting this complaint. Unfortunately, winnings haven’t been received yet. The casino provided us with evidence that the payment was successful, therefore, we rejected the complaint.

The player from Nigeria was experiencing difficulties depositing money into the online casino. We had advised him to contact his payment provider to investigate the issue, as the casino usually had limited control over such matters. Despite extending the response time, the player did not provide any updates, which led us to reject the complaint due to lack of information.

The player from Pakistan is unable to complete transactions due to KYC verification issues. He submitted all required documents over a week ago, but the issue still persists. We rejected the complaint because the player stopped responding.

The player from India had made a deposit of 10000, which had not yet been credited to his account. Despite lodging a complaint and providing proof of transaction, the issue persisted. We had advised the player to contact his payment provider for further investigation, as the casino had limited control over the transaction process. We extended the complaint's timer to allow the casino a full month for investigation. However, due to the player's lack of response to our messages, we were unable to proceed further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Kentucky complains that the wager value on the casino's website changes to 1.00 without notice when switching between crypto and fiat views. After gathering more information we decided to reject the complaint as unjustified.

The player from Lithuania reports that their account was blocked post-verification, resulting in confiscated balance. The player insists on not having committed any violations. The complaint was rejected as the complaint was sports betting related.

The player from Moldova requested self-exclusion but their emails and live chat messages were ignored while their account remained active. Despite their exclusion request, they were able to deposit $1974.22 in XRP. The player is seeking a reimbursement of these funds. The complaint was rejected as the player stopped responding.

The player from India made a deposit of 4900 INR to his BC Game account, but the funds were debited from his bank account without being credited to his casino account. We closed the complaint because the player didn't reply to our messages and questions.

The player from Tibet has requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. Their money hasn’t been received yet. After an extended period of time, the casino informed the player that their account had been unlocked and that they could make a withdrawal. The player received their payment and the case was resolved.

The player from the United States had his account blocked after his email was stolen and subsequently restored. Despite having invested over 1 million dollars and being fully verified, the casino has not provided an explanation. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Nigeria tried to deposit money to his casino account twice on the 23rd of July and hasn't received the credit yet. The complaint was rejected because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from India initiated a withdrawal and it has been pending since July 21st. Each day, they contact support and are always told different reasons for the delay, while simultaneously not receiving any updates from the casino's team. The complaint was rejected because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Australia is questioning the fairness of the games at the casino. They noticed suspicious activity, including counter bets and lower payouts, despite a stable internet connection and constant cache clearing. After a closer examination, we ended up rejecting this complaint as unjustified.

The player from Brazil can't access his account on BC Game due to apparent 'security issues.' The casino requested additional verification, including his IP number. Despite providing the requested information four days ago, the player has received no updates. We closed the complaint because the casino specified the issue is related to the player's sports-betting activity.

The Australian player won a jackpot of $100,000 USD in a house lottery. However, when he tried to withdraw his winnings in Ethereum, the transaction was denied and his account was locked for "verification". He has been waiting weeks and hasn't received satisfactory responses from the casino’s support team. The complaint resolved as the player's account got reopened and received the payout.

The player from Brazil is experiencing problems with depositing money via Pix, despite providing proof. The deposit of 100 BRL has not been credited to the casino account, and multiple attempts to address this issue have been unsuccessful. The complaint was rejected because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Nigeria has experienced an issue with a deposit not reflecting in his BC games account. Despite having contacted support and appealed the ticket, he has not received a response for over 96 hours. The player stopped responding to our questions and comments, so we rejected the complaint.

The player from Mexico requested a withdrawal of 1733 and completed the KYC verification. However, the casino has not responded for more than 3 weeks and the support staff is not answering the player's messages. We contacted the caisno and it informed us about the documentation received and the player's account being checked. The next day the player stated his account was finally activated and the withdrawal processed so the complaint was closed as resolved.

The player from Chile has lost access to their account containing considerable deposits. Despite many attempts to contact the support and providing all requested details for account verification, they haven't received a reply in one month. The complaint was closed as the player stopped responding.

The player from Japan tried to make a withdrawal. However, the casino claims that the player cannot withdraw his winnings. The issue remains unresolved as the support has not responded. The complaint was rejected because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from India has had their account blocked without reason and has not received any response despite multiple attempts at contact. They are seeking to retrieve their funds. The complaint was rejected because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Brazil has an issue with the verification process at a casino. Despite providing the required documents, the account remains unverified. The player reports a lack of communication, both through live support and email. The complaint was rejected because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

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

The player from India requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. The payment hasn’t been processed yet. The complaint was rejected because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Pakistan made a deposit of 2,000 USD, but the account became restricted. They submitted verification documents, but the casino claims rules were broken. The player requested assistance in recovering their funds. Later, the provided evidence confirmed that the complainant breached the terms and conditions. The disputed account was closed because he conducted a self-referral, created multiple accounts using his own affiliate link, and earned commissions from gameplay, which means he took an unfair advantage over the casino and abused the system to benefit himself at the expense of the casino. Although the remaining balance was higher, as a solution, the casino offered the user a payout of the difference between the sum of all his deposits and the withdrawn amount, while his remaining balance was cleansed from everything above this sum since accumulated illegitimately. This solution should have settled the disputed account to zero, and it was accepted by the player. Despite nonresponsiveness on the player's side, in accordance with the details about progress during the course of the complaint process and the warning directed to the player, we consider the complaint resolved. Later, the player himself confirmed it via email.

The player from India cannot access their casino account due to verification issues, despite submitting all required documents. The account remains locked, probably due to a transfer made by the player's brother. The complaint was rejected because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Nigeria deposited money to the casino. Unfortunately, the deposit has not been credited to his account yet. The player stopped responding to our comments and questions, so we had to reject the complaint.

The player's account got blocked for multi-accounting. The complaint was rejected due to the player's admission of creating multiple accounts and participating in self-referral misuse. Despite the player's apparent lack of awareness regarding the prohibited nature of these activities, the casino adhered to its terms and conditions by closing the associated accounts. As a sign of good faith, they allowed one of the player's accounts to remain active.

The player's verification was delayed for over a month. We contacted the casino and found out that the name on the proof of address didn't match the name on the player's ID. The player explained that he lived with his mother therefore the bills were on her name, but he offered to provide the bank statement to confirm his address. Finally, the casino agreed to accept credit card invoice, but after the player sent it there was no further progress. We tried to contact the casino again, but it stopped to respond so we closed the complaint as unresolved. 3 months later, the casino repesentative requested to reopen the complaint as they claimed the issue was resolved and the player's account was open and being used. We asked the player to comfirm this information, however, they ignored our messages so the compaint was finally rejected.

The player from Australia wasn't satisfied with the casino's services. He had claimed to have won $396,000 but was unable to withdraw his winnings due to a technical glitch, according to the casino. The player also alleged that the casino took back a significant part of his winnings while his withdrawal request was pending. The casino, however, had argued that the player's significant winnings were due to a technical glitch that affected over 500 players, and they had to reset the balances of those affected. The player was adamant that he was right and threatened legal action. The complaint was rejected after we received the statement from the gaming authority that dismissed the player's complaint.