Betpanda Casino Review

The player from Argentina had been unable to permanently close the account due to the casino's non-responsive behavior, resulting in a loss of over 300 euros. The player also complained about the casino's refusal to provide information about their license. We had clarified the difference between account closure and self-exclusion, and noted that the player's account was eventually closed as per their request. However, we acknowledged that the casino in question had a poor license with almost no regulation. We advised the player to conduct better research before registration and offered assistance for future issues.

The player from Canada had his account closed when he attempted his first withdrawal. The casino had cited the creation of multiple accounts as the reason. However, the player had denied using multiple accounts or promotions. Despite the player's denial, the casino had provided evidence of multiple accounts linked to the player, including bonus abuse. The Complaints Team concluded that the casino had acted in accordance with its terms and conditions, as multiple accounts and bonus abuse were serious violations. Consequently, the complaint had been closed as unjustified.

The player from Norway had faced account closure by Betpanda due to "player advantage", with their balance and winnings being confiscated. The player contested this, insisting that they hadn't used the bonus that the decision was based on. The player's attempts to communicate had been met with unsatisfactory responses. We had attempted to gather more information from the player to fully understand the situation, and even extended the complaint response time by 7 days. However, due to a lack of response from the player, we had to reject the complaint.

The player from the Netherlands requested self-exclusion six times due to gambling addiction, but the casino did not act. After losing a significant amount post the first request, the player is now seeking a refund of losses. The casino has stopped responding to emails. The complaint was rejected as the player stopped responding.

The player from the Netherlands had asked Betpanda Casino to close his account due to gambling issues but received no response. In the meantime, he had lost €170 in ETH. We had requested additional information and proof from the player to proceed with the investigation. However, despite extending the response deadline, the player did not provide the required details. Consequently, the complaint was rejected due to the lack of response from the player.

The player from Norway had reported an issue with BetPanda Casino, where despite his requests for account closure due to self-acknowledged gambling addiction, the account had remained active. The player had made multiple attempts to reach the casino for immediate closure and review of recent deposits, but to no avail. The player also claimed that the casino's response time and handling of the situation had been unsatisfactory. Despite our team's efforts to mediate the situation and contact the casino, the casino had remained unresponsive. We concluded that the casino had failed to handle the self-exclusion process correctly, leading us to mark the complaint as 'unresolved'. This outcome had negatively affected the casino's safety rating on our website.

The player from Netherlands who self-acknowledged a gambling problem had repeatedly requested account closure but received no response, which led him to continue playing and lose all his funds. We attempted to assist the player by requesting evidence of his communication with the casino, but he did not respond. As a result, we were unable to investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Ireland had been allowed to join, play, and deposit in the casino from a banned country, but was subsequently denied a refund. He had contested that if he had won, the casino would have denied his withdrawal. However, the Complaints Team had stated they couldn't assist with this hypothetical situation. The player did not respond to further inquiries, which led to the rejection of his complaint due to a lack of communication.