BetMGM Casino NJ Review

The player from the United Kingdom felt misled by the casino. He had believed he was playing at 25p a spin, but 34p was deducted due to an opt-in he was unaware of. The player insisted he had not knowingly opted in to this feature. He contacted the casino, but they claimed nothing could be done as he had opted in. We reviewed the game and promotional terms and found that the opt-in feature had been indicated. We concluded that the player was responsible for their account and bets. Therefore, we could not find a valid reason for a refund and rejected the complaint.

The player from the United Kingdom, who had previously self-excluded through Gamstop on LeoVegas, was permitted to set up and deposit on BetMGM, another site owned by LeoVegas, leading to irresponsible gambling. The player had used the same information on both accounts, and she had hoped to be compensated for her deposits. She had deposited a total of £1062 and her account was suspended at the time while the safer gambling team conducted an investigation. The player believed this to have been a severe breach of Safer Gambling regulations. Despite our efforts to gather more information and evidence from the player to further investigate the case, the player failed to respond. As a result, we had to reject the complaint.

The player from Canada had deposited $40 in an online casino, only to discover afterwards that the casino did not accept players from his location. As a result, his funds were stuck. We had attempted to gather more information from the player to better understand the situation and potentially resolve the issue. However, the player did not respond to our messages and questions, which prevented further investigation. Consequently, we had to reject the complaint due to this lack of communication.

The player from Ontario had encountered issues with the verification process at the casino. Despite having provided the requested documents, the casino still found issues with them, without specifying the exact problems. We reached out to the player for additional details about the documents submitted, but the player did not respond to our inquiries. As a result, we were unable to investigate the matter further and had to reject the complaint.

The UK player had claimed that the online casino was not complying with the UKGC rules and had failed to respond to his requests to speak to their responsible gambling team. His account had been frequently restricted, preventing him from accessing earned reward spins. He had also alleged that the casino falsely claimed he had self-excluded. The casino had closed his account, but he had no remaining balance. We had clarified that the casino had the right to close his account without providing a reason, as long as there was no remaining balance. We had suggested that he contact the UKGC for further assistance. The player's complaint was then closed as the situation had been explained to him several times.

The player from the United Kingdom had won £3,000, but his account had been blocked after he attempted to withdraw £500. The casino had requested a Gamstop registration certificate, even though the player had already been removed from Gamstop. Despite him providing evidence of his Gamstop removal, the casino still refused to unfreeze his account. We had asked the player for further information and extended the response time, but unfortunately, the player did not respond to our queries. As a result, we had been unable to proceed with the investigation or provide any potential solutions, which led to the rejection of the complaint.

The player from the United Kingdom had deposited funds into accounts opened by his partner, unaware of the amount. Shortly after making a deposit at 888sport, the account had been suspended due to responsible gaming concerns. He had deposited a total of £2000 across the accounts. The player was on Gamstop, and was aware that it was his lack of self-control that had led to the issue. He had questioned whether the casino would return the deposited money if the account was closed. We had explained that the casino was not obligated to refund the money due to the breach of terms. The complaint had been subsequently rejected due to these reasons.

The player from the UK, after having closed her GAMSTOP restriction, had deposited £600 and won £350 at Bet MGM. However, the casino withheld her winnings, claiming her account was linked to a self-excluded account within their network of sites. We had attempted to investigate the issue, asking the player for more information and extending the deadline of the complaint. However, due to the player's lack of response, we were unable to proceed with the investigation and had to reject the complaint.