Betadda Casino Review

The player from India had submitted a withdrawal request less than two weeks before contacting us. Winnings hadn't been obtained up to that day. The casino had claimed that the player engaged in gameplay abuse and thus breached the platform's terms of use. After the player verified his account, the casino didn't receive any subsequent withdrawal request. The player failed to respond to our inquiries, which led us to reject the complaint due to lack of further information.

The player from India had won $43,000 from Roulette on the Betadda website. While the initial withdrawal of $3,000 had been successful, the remaining $40,000 was rejected due to the account being frozen for allegedly having multiple accounts. Upon investigation, the Complaints Team had found that the casino had evidence to suggest the player was associated with multiple accounts, sharing similarities in name, password, IP, device cookie, and gameplay pattern. The player's explanation had been that she had logged into her account from a shared computer in her cafe, which might have been used by others. However, the casino's Terms and Conditions explicitly prohibited such actions. Therefore, the Complaints Team had concluded that the casino was justified in its actions and rejected the player's complaint.

The player from India had raised a complaint against Betadda Casino, claiming it to be fraudulent as his withdrawal request of INR 1500 had been pending for four days. Despite our repeated attempts to gather more information about his account status, the nature of his winnings, and his last interaction with the casino, the player had not provided any additional details. As a result, we were unable to proceed further with the investigation and were compelled to reject the complaint due to the player's lack of response.

The player from India had encountered a problem with an online casino after his second withdrawal of 50k was rejected and his account had been suspended. He had claimed that his account was fully verified and that he had fulfilled the bonus conditions. Later, the casino had returned the player's forfeited amount along with a compensatory reward. However, the player hadn't confirmed if the issue was resolved, so we had to reject the complaint.