Casino Adrenaline Review

The player from the US had claimed that the casino wrongly accused her of betting over the wagering limit, a claim she disputed after reviewing her betting history. She stated that her balance was presented as a single bonus balance and she had never exceeded the $5 limit. The Complaints Team had asked her to provide her full game history for further investigation. Despite extending the response time by 7 days, the player had failed to respond, which led to the rejection of the complaint. The Complaints Team was unable to proceed with the investigation or provide potential solutions due to the lack of communication from the player.

The player from California had attempted to use a bonus offered by Casino Adrenaline, but it was not added to his deposit. He had contacted the casino through chat, where he was informed that his deposit had to be clean for the bonus to apply. The player, who had faced similar issues in the past, did not start playing with the funds. He clarified that he had initiated a chat to inform the casino about the missing bonus before starting to play. The casino's representative, however, had ended the chat abruptly after his inquiry. Following the player's request, we had rejected the complaint.

The player from California had deposited $10, believing it to have been the minimum deposit amount, but was later informed by the casino's support team that the actual minimum was $20. He had requested his deposited amount to be credited or to receive free spins equivalent to the amount deposited. However, due to the player's lack of response to our inquiries for further clarification, we had been unable to proceed with an investigation or provide potential solutions. The complaint was consequently rejected.

The player from Mississippi had submitted a withdrawal request less than two weeks prior to contacting us. Winnings hadn't been obtained up to that day. We had advised the player to wait for at least 14 days after the withdrawal request before submitting a complaint. However, despite our attempts to communicate and extend the response time, the player did not respond to our messages. As a result, we could not investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Mississippi was disputing a claim made by the casino that they exceeded the maximum bet amount allowed while playing with a bonus. The player insisted the maximum they bet was 5 dollars and did not believe that they bet 32 dollars as claimed by the casino. The player did not have access to the full game history and aimed to resolve this issue. After reviewing all the provided details from the casino, it was confirmed that the player indeed exceeded the maximum bet, however, it seems it was a one-time and/or unintentional violation. The casino was able and willing to reconsider its original decision and offered the player the reimbursement of the disputed winnings decreased by the sum of the bonus amount since it was not withdrawable, his deposit put into play, and the winnings accumulated from the forbidden bet. The complainant consequently accepted the casino's offer and has already confirmed a successful withdrawal. The complaint is resolved.

A player from Alberta is having trouble after accidentally canceling a deposit at an online casino. The casino's customer support is unwilling to help resolve the issue, despite the player providing all relevant information. The complaint was rejected because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from the United States was in the middle of a slot game when her phone’s battery died. When she returned to the game, she found out that her winnings were gone. After investigating the issue, we had to wait for a full report from the game provider, but as this takes a lot of time, the casino decided to provide an offer to the player as compensation for the inconvenience, which was accepted by the player. Since both parties were able to reach a consensus and the agreed offer was credited to the player successfully, we consider this complaint to be resolved.

The player from Poland tried to withdraw winnings accumulated with free spins, but the casino accused him of creating multiple accounts. After the player's account had been successfully verified and the winnings reinstated, the player confirmed the case was resolved.

The player from Canada has been accused of opening multiple accounts. The casino has confronted the player about the creation of multiple accounts. We left enough time for the player to explain the situation, but the player failed to do that and became unresponsive in the end. The complaint was rejected because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

A long-time player ''vc102684'' from the US complained that the Casino had confiscated his winnings. It seems that the player's balance (existing "excess balance") wasn't properly removed after he'd withdrawn winnings from previous bonus and then made a new deposit which was credited 40 seconds from the moment the cashout had been processed. By doing so, he breached the rule saying ''player cannot make a new deposit until he had played the balance of a current deposit, and bonus and his balance is below 1USD''. The Casino explained that while it may appear as a technicality at the first glance, please understand that betting patterns and individual bet amounts were directly impacted by the visible Playable Balance and if this Playable Balance amount was invalid – bets and wins must be considered such as well. However, the Casino accepted to make an exception and decided to pay 4.000 USD to this long-time Player.

The player from the US won in the casino but her withdrawal was cancelled and her winnings were confiscated due to mixing funds. The casino has not responded to the complaint, and it was closed as "unresolved".

The player from Michigan 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, Zingazun23, made the first deposit, took a bonus and won €6,000. After he requested a withdrawal, he was told that his country, Azerbajdzan, belonged to restricted countries to play from. He claimed that wasn't true and provided a screenshot of it as evidence. He couldn't understand how did they let him deposit, play, win but not to withdraw his winning. The casino must've had changed the terms of restricted countries but in the term of fairness, should've had informed the player about it. No further update on this unfair case is available and we hope that the player did receive his winning.

The player from the United States faced issues withdrawing winnings after using a "NO RULES" deposit bonus. Despite having achieved the playthrough requirements, Yabby Casino later voided her winnings, claiming a violation of coupon terms due to playing restricted games. The player expressed frustration over her account balance discrepancies and the lack of communication from the casino. After reviewing the case, the Complaints Team facilitated communication with the casino, which ultimately reinstated the player's winnings, allowing her to successfully withdraw the funds. The issue was then considered resolved.

The player from the United States had requested a $50 withdrawal 6 weeks ago after using a free chip. Despite submitting the required KYC documents, the casino hadn’t processed the withdrawal and had only responded with runaround emails for almost 2 weeks. The player had submitted the necessary documents promptly, but without confirmation from the casino. After the Complaints Team intervened, the player's identity was verified, and the withdrawal was processed successfully. The complaint was marked as resolved.

The player from California tried to withdraw winnings, but the casino claimed they had multiple accounts and locked them out without providing a way to verify. The player shared the household with others who also had accounts but insisted they were not creating multiple accounts. The issue was resolved quickly after the casino verified her account and refunded her winnings.

The player from California had his account closed when he tried to make a withdrawal. The player's winnings of $50 had been accumulated using a free chip. The casino had required verification, which was a new requirement as previous withdrawals had been made without it. The player had sent verification documents, but the casino had closed the account before verification was completed. The casino had cited the reason for closure as 'threats of self-harm' made by the player in emails. The player had apologized for his behavior and expressed a willingness to cooperate. We, the Complaints Team, had requested the casino to clarify the account verification status and reconsider paying the $50 if verification was successful. The casino confirmed that the account would remain closed but agreed to pay the $50 winnings. The player confirmed receipt of the funds, thus resolving the complaint.

The player from Ohio had been blocked from his casino account following a delay in the withdrawal process despite having met the playthrough requirements. Despite multiple attempts, the casino had not responded to his inquiries, wouldn't discuss the issue or return his deposit. The player confirmed that he had previously passed the KYC verification and had been regularly playing and withdrawing funds. He played slots to meet the bonus requirements. After the intervention of the Complaints Team, the casino acknowledged an error on their end, reactivated the player's account, and processed his withdrawal of $621.15. The player confirmed the receipt of his payout, and the complaint was marked as resolved.

The player from the United States had experienced a delay in his account verification process with Yabby Casino, which had lasted for two weeks. He had submitted all the necessary documents, including his ID and a selfie holding his ID. The Complaints Team had intervened by contacting the casino to expedite the process. The casino had responded, confirming that the player's account had been fully verified and his first withdrawal had been processed successfully. The player had confirmed receipt of his payment, and the issue had been marked as resolved.

The player from New York had a problem withdrawing $106.61 from Yabby Casino, the winnings from a $50 deposit. Despite having played through the required playthrough balance, the casino denied the request, stating the player didn't meet the withdrawal requirement. After the Complaints Team explained that the player had used a sticky bonus, which couldn't be withdrawn without sufficient balance according to the casino's terms and conditions, the player understood the situation. The player did not require further assistance, leading us to mark the complaint as resolved.

The player from Colorado had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. The payment hadn't been processed yet. After the player's multiple attempts to communicate with the casino and provide necessary documents, the issue had remained unresolved. However, the player later confirmed that the payout was finally received. We marked the complaint as resolved following the successful payout.

The player from the United States had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks before he submitted this complaint. His money had not been received at that point. The player had been unable to log into his account, even though he had been verified and had withdrawn funds previously. After the Complaints Team had extended the resolution period and suggested that the player contact the casino directly, the player had informed them that the casino had paid him. The delay had been due to the casino's need to verify his identity. The issue had been resolved successfully and the complaint had been marked as 'resolved' by the Complaints Team.

The player from Thailand had faced issues with account verification at an online casino, which had caused a delay in his withdrawal of $103. After he had submitted all required documents for KYC verification, the player was informed by the casino's banking department that the data did not match their account. The player had then forwarded all documents to the Complaints Team. After a thorough review, it had been suggested that the player might need to submit translated versions of his documents. Eventually, the casino had approved the player's account, resolving the issue. The player had expressed satisfaction with the resolution and the complaint had been marked as 'resolved'.

The player from Mexico has been denied his winnings of $1500. Due to the Casino's website being blocked in Mexico, he used a VPN to access and play. The account was closed when the casino noticed the country change and refused to pay out, despite the fact he's a verified customer in their casino group. Since the player used false information in his account, we rejected the complaint. The complaint was reopened at the request of the player. After reviewing the case, the casino decided that they could make an exception for this player as they had been able to match the details at a partner casino. The player then received their payment and the case was resolved.

The player from Mississippi requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. The payment hasn’t been processed yet. The player later confirmed that the withdrawal was processed successfully, therefore we marked this complaint as resolved.

The player from Mississippi is facing issues with cryptocurrency withdrawal. After winning $609 and attempting to withdraw $300, the casino rejected the request, insisting the entire amount needs to be withdrawn. The player has previously been able to withdraw partial amounts and is confused about the sudden change in policy. Player’s complaint has been resolved successfully.

The player from the United States had his account blocked without further explanation. We closed the complaint as resolved after the player's confirmation that their account had been verified and funds successfully withdrawn.

The player from the United States is complaining about the lengthy verification process. A week after submitting the complaint, the player informed us that their account was finally verified and the winnings withdrawn, so we closed the complaint as resolved.

The player from Germany is experiencing difficulties withdrawing their winnings due to ongoing verification. The player later confirmed that the withdrawal was processed successfully, therefore we marked this complaint as resolved.

The player from New York has requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. The payment hasn’t been processed yet. The player later confirmed that the withdrawal was processed successfully, therefore we marked this complaint as resolved.

The player from the United States was accused of opening multiple accounts. The casino has informed us that after reviewing the player's issue, all restrictions have been removed from his account. We consider the complaint resolved.

The player from the US had an issue with Casino Extreme after his winnings had been removed due to the casino's claim of multiple registrations from the same IP address. The player had disputed this, stating that he was the only one using his account from his current and previous addresses. After he had provided all the necessary information and evidence, we had contacted the casino to clarify the situation. The casino then requested additional documents from the player, which were provided. After review, the casino had verified the player's account and reimbursed his winnings. The player had also been informed about the industry-standard requirement of a verification deposit for withdrawal of winnings from a no-deposit bonus. The player had made the deposit and was able to redeem his winnings. The player had confirmed the resolution of the issue.

The player from Alberta had his account at Casino Extreme closed due to the casino's allegations of bonus abuse. Although he initially requested the account closure, the player had decided to revisit the casino. Unable to access his old account, he had created a new one and deposited funds. The casino had asked for re-verification, which he completed, but the casino had refused to return his deposit. After a series of communications with our team, the player had resolved the issue on his own. We had expressed our contentment over the successful resolution and reminded him of our constant availability for assistance with any future issues.

The player from Canada had expressed frustration after he had deposited a total of $2050 on three different occasions without any credits to his casino account. He had disputed the casino's claim that they had received the payment but made an error in crediting his account. The player had provided proof and insisted that the casino should have borne the responsibility for any system bug. However, he later informed that the dispute had been settled. We had marked the complaint as resolved and thanked the player for his cooperation.

The player from Arizona experienced promotional issues as Casino Extreme, despite advertising a "fortnightly bonus," hasn't honored it for the month and has not provided clear information regarding the delay. The complaint was resolved as the bonus was credited to the player.

The player from Washington had encountered a deposit error on the casino site where her $35 deposit had been deducted from her card but a JavaScript error occurred. The casino's customer service had not been helpful in resolving the issue. After she contacted her payment provider as suggested by our team, the issue was resolved and the deposit was credited to her casino account. The player had expressed dissatisfaction with the casino's overall service but confirmed that the deposit issue was resolved. We had marked the complaint as resolved in our system.

The player from Brazil faced a "Player login restricted" message when attempting to access his Brango Casino account, which contained a significant amount of deposited money and winnings. He requested an explanation and access to his account to resolve the issue. The Complaints Team assisted by facilitating communication with the casino, leading to the player successfully completing the account verification process. As a result, access to the casino account was restored, and the complaint was marked as resolved.

The player from Massachusetts encountered issues withdrawing winnings, as the casino claimed a violation of terms for playing a progressive slot, which had not been clearly labeled. Despite following the guidelines, the player’s cashout of $2,558.11 was rejected, and only the initial deposit was returned. The player felt entitled to the winnings due to unclear game classifications. The Complaints Team acknowledged the player's concerns but noted that the casino's terms had been agreed upon during signup. A resolution was reached when the casino offered a $150 chip as compensation, which the player accepted. The complaint was marked as resolved.

The player from Texas had requested a withdrawal prior to submitting their complaint. Unfortunately, their winnings had not been received yet. The issue was resolved after the player received the payment from the casino. The Complaints Team marked the complaint as 'resolved' following confirmation of the payment.

The player from the US had experienced difficulties with a cryptocurrency deposit at an online casino. Despite having paid an extra fee for expedited processing, the deposit had taken 24 hours instead of the promised 2 hours. Moreover, the player had been unable to withdraw their winnings due to their balance being below the casino's minimum withdrawal limit. After the player had communicated their issues, the casino had resolved the problems to the player's satisfaction. The complaint was subsequently marked as 'resolved'.

The player from the United States had completed the play-through requirements but his withdrawal request had been denied by the online casino. The casino had requested documentation for verification, which the player had contested due to his use of cryptocurrency for depositing. However, we had clarified that KYC procedures were still applicable even with cryptocurrency deposits. The player later confirmed that the casino had paid him, resolving the issue.

The player from the United States had deposited the equivalent of $20 in Litecoin at Brango Casino to activate a birthday bonus. However, the casino had claimed that he had deposited $19.99, making him ineligible for the bonus. The player had sought either a refund of his deposit or the activation of the bonus. After he submitted a complaint, the casino had reached out to the player, apologized for the situation, and added the bonus to his account. This resolution had led to the closure of the complaint.

The player from California had submitted a withdrawal request less than two weeks before he contacted us, but hadn't received his winnings yet. After we advised him to be patient, cooperate with the casino, and wait at least 14 days after requesting the withdrawal before submitting a complaint, the player confirmed that his issue had been resolved. We then marked the complaint as 'resolved' in our system.

The player from Indiana had experienced a delay in account verification and a payout of $50, which had been requested on October 26th, 2023. Despite reaching out daily to the casino, he hadn't received any response. We had explained the importance of the KYC process and asked for details about the documents he had provided. The player later confirmed that the casino had paid him, and we marked the issue as resolved.

The player from Texas had met the wagering requirements for their bonus and left a substantial balance. Subsequently, they initiated a withdrawal which was voided by the casino, citing restricted game play as the reason, a violation the player denies having committed.

The player from Ontario had requested a withdrawal but hadn't received his winnings. We had suggested that he waited at least 14 days after requesting the withdrawal before filing a complaint. If his account had been verified, his game history checked, and his withdrawal approved by the casino. The player eventually received the withdrawal, and the complaint had been consequently marked as resolved.

The player from the United States completed many formalities and requirements for account verification, aiming for cryptocurrency withdrawal. However, the casino declined the withdrawal, and the player’s bonus of $156 was found to be non-withdrawable. After increasing the winnings to $400 and attempting withdrawal, the casino voided the winnings, leaving a balance of $29.99.

The player from Canada had encountered issues with the KYC process at an online casino. Despite having submitted the necessary documents for account verification three weeks prior, he hadn't received any confirmation. The situation had escalated when the casino deducted $130 from his account, leaving only $50, and cancelled his $180 withdrawal request citing verification issues. The casino had stated that only $50 could be withdrawn from bonus winnings. After reviewing the casino's bonus terms and conditions, we had confirmed this rule. The player had eventually accepted this explanation, and the complaint had been marked as resolved.

The player from Texas has been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, their payout hasn’t been received yet. the casino responded and explained that the winnings had been confisctaed due to the player depositing before completing the wagering requirements of an active bonus, and playing with 'mixed funds'. Upon further review, the casino decided to make an exception in this case and return the winnings to the player, as no unfair advantage had been gained on this occasion. Consequently, the complaint was closed as 'resolved'.

The Utah player faced difficulties in withdrawing her winnings because according to the casino, she played restricted games with a bonus. Since the restricted games were played after the bonus was wagered, the bonus conditions should no longer have been applicable. Consequently, the casino ultimately decided to pay the player their legitimate winnings.

The player from the United States is experiencing difficulties withdrawing her winnings due to ongoing verification. After the player's account had been successfully verified, the player confirmed receipt of the payment.

The player from the United States has been accused of breaking the T&Cs by playing a restricted game while completing bonus wagering. After contacting the casino and their explanation, both parties agreed on a satisfactory solution. The player confirmed the complaint was resolved.

The player struggled to verify his card as the casino was non responsive. After submitting the complaint, the casino got in touch with the player, his card was verified and the winnings were paid out after a month of waiting.

The player from the US experiences difficulties with his bitcoin deposit in the casino. The player confirmed the deposit was credited to his casino account after the casino was given proof of the transaction.

The player from the US had their winnings confiscated after the casino accused him of breaking the bonus terms and conditions. After contacting the casino and their explanation, both parties agreed on a satisfactory solution. Based on the circumstances, we consider the complaint resolved.

The player from South Africa was experiencing complications verifying the email address and completing account verification. After following the casino's instructions, the withdrawal was completely processed. The complaint is resolved.

The player from Manitoba had submitted a withdrawal request less than two weeks before contacting us. Winnings had not been obtained up to that day. After multiple attempts to withdraw his winnings and receiving error messages, the player reported the issue to us. The player later confirmed he finally received his money manually after a few weeks of attempts. The complaint was resolved.

The player from Sweden had won $50 as a no deposit bonus at Limitlesscasino and deposited $30 in litecoin to withdraw his winnings. However, his balance had shown as 'pending' for the last 7 hours, and he had not received any response to multiple emails sent for assistance. The issue was resolved after the player received a response from the casino, allowing him to sort out the withdrawal. The complaint was marked as 'resolved' in the system.

The player from Nevada had been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, their payout had not been received yet. The issue was resolved after the player completed the necessary verification process. Following this, the complaint was marked as 'resolved' by the Complaints Team.

The player from the United States had experienced a delay with the casino's verification process, which had prolonged the timeline for his withdrawal. He had felt that the casino's support was unresponsive and ineffective. After the player had submitted his complaint, we intervened and contacted the casino. The casino had responded that the quality of the documents provided by the player was insufficient for verification. After the player had resubmitted the required documents, his account was successfully verified. He was then able to proceed with his withdrawal. The issue had been resolved to the player's satisfaction.

The player from the US had experienced a delay in his account verification process at an online casino, which had taken two weeks instead of the stated 3-5 days. After his account had been verified, he had encountered issues with cashing out his winnings. However, the situation had been resolved after his communication with the casino and the player had confirmed that his problem was solved. The complaint was subsequently marked as 'resolved' by us.

The player from Virginia had been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, her payout had not been received yet. After the Complaints Team advised her to be patient and wait for at least 14 days after requesting the withdrawal, she confirmed that she had received her winnings. We then marked the complaint as 'resolved'.

The player from California had had a balance dispute with Limitless Casino due to a misunderstanding about the terms of a sticky bonus. The player had believed he had met the wagering requirements and was eligible to withdraw his winnings. However, the casino had claimed the player still owed the bonus amount. The player had also been unhappy about the casino's refusal to verify his documents and imposition of a withdrawal charge. After our team had explained the terms and conditions of the sticky bonus, the player had managed to increase his balance and make a successful withdrawal. The issue had been resolved to the player's satisfaction.

The player from Ontario had expressed frustration due to a delay in her account verification process despite having submitted the necessary documents 5 days prior. However, the issue had been resolved and her account was verified, which enabled her to make a withdrawal. An additional requirement, which was a $10 deposit. The Complaints Team had marked the issue as 'resolved' following the successful resolution.

The player from North Carolina has made several attempts to withdraw her $50.00 from Limitless Casino but keeps getting redirected. Despite following all required steps, including depositing more than the required amount, providing all verification details and contacting several email addresses provided by the casino, she's not received her money.

The player from the United States was facing issues with account access and withdrawal of $100 due to alleged multiple accounts. Despite sending verification documents as requested, there was no update or acknowledgement from the support team, and communication was ceased. Later, after the discussion with the casino, as an exception, its decision was reconsidered, and the casino successfully paid out the disputed winnings to the player's payment method. Basically, once he provided the casino with the requested documents, the payment was processed almost immediately.

The player from Massachusetts had contested a dispute with Limitless Casino. After using a coupon, which restricted games to non-progressive slots, Keno, and Video Poker, the player claimed they had unintentionally violated the casino's Terms and Conditions by playing Black Jack when the game became available. Despite initially approving the withdrawal, the casino had voided the player's $1500 winnings, returning only their $50 deposit due to the violation of terms. After reviewing the case, we had reached out to the casino and they agreed to return the winnings that had been acquired prior to the player starting to play Blackjack, which was restricted by the bonus terms. The total amount of $1,314.38 had been reimbursed to the player's account and was only eligible for withdrawal. The player had confirmed receipt of the funds and requested a payout, marking the resolution of the issue.

The player from Thailand was advised to use VPN due to access issues, which led to a deposit under a USA IP. After winning $1,500, he attempted to update his country for withdrawal but has been denied by the casino. Despite sending required documents, the casino has ceased communication. The casino replied and stated that the player's documents had been found in the casino's spam folder and so had not been seen by the verification team. The documents were reviewed and the player's verification was completed. After some further problems with the player's withdrawal request, the withdrawal was processed and the player received their payment. Consequently, the complaint was closed as 'resolved'.

The player from the United States registered with Limitless Casino and after winning, tried to verify their account to withdraw funds. Despite the assurance of verification within five business days, it has now been three weeks with no progress and repetitive responses from the casino. The issue with verification has been resolved successfully.

The player from Florida deposited bitcoins and was told that their account would be automatically verified. After losing the deposit, they fulfilled the playthrough requirements on 20 Free Spins. However, now the casino is requesting account verification. Player’s complaint has been resolved successfully.

The player from Arizona deposited $198 and claimed a bonus, which initially had a maximum cashout of 10 times the deposit. He won $3200, but the balance reduced to $1980 in line with the initial term. The casino altered this term later to limit cashout to 5 times the deposit. They are now willing to pay him $991, applying the new term retroactively.

The player from the United States has been trying to get verified by Limitless Casino for nearly two months. They have sent the verification form multiple times, followed the customer support's recommendation to provide additional photos, and sent numerous emails, but have not received any response. The issue has been resolved successfully.

The player struggled to withdraw his winnings due ongoing verification. We contacted the casino and received a reply, where they explained that the player needed to make a verification deposit after playing with free spins bonus. The player promised to make one, and later informed us that she successfully received her winnings, so we closed the complaint as resolved.

The player from the United States has requested a withdrawal a few hours prior to submitting this complaint. Simply, winnings haven’t been received yet. Player’s complaint has been resolved successfully.

The player's winnings were voided for breaching the casino terms. After contacting the casino and their explanation, both parties agreed on a satisfactory solution. The player confirmed the complaint was resolved.

The player from the United States requested a withdrawal two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. Unfortunately, the winnings haven’t been received yet. The casino did not respond to this complaint, so it was closed as 'unresolved'. Following the casino's request to reopen the complaint, we reached out to the player and requested their confirmation of payment receipt. The casino had assured us that the payment had already been processed. Despite receiving no response from the player, we deemed the complaint as resolved, based on the detailed information provided by the casino.