Casino Adrenaline Review

The player from Brazil had experienced difficulty withdrawing his winnings from an online casino, despite having submitted all necessary verification documents. The casino had promised to resolve the issue within 24 hours, but had failed to do so. The player had made two deposits and used a welcome bonus, and had fulfilled the wagering requirements. Despite this, the casino had continually refused his withdrawal requests. After the player's complaint, the issue had been resolved.

The player from Brazil had deposited $24 USD using a bonus code, but the funds had not been credited to his casino account. Despite Casino Guru's information having stated that Brazilians could use Skrill, the casino had informed him that only Canadians could use this service. We had advised the player to contact his payment provider and cautioned him against making further deposits until the issue was resolved. However, due to the player's lack of response to our messages, we were unable to investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Canada had encountered difficulties in withdrawing winnings of 100. Claims of mixed bonuses, balance above $1 while depositing, and verification delays were cited as reasons for withdrawal refusal. The player had also reported delayed account verification. Despite our efforts to assist and multiple extensions for response, the player failed to provide necessary details. Consequently, we had to reject the complaint due to lack of response. Despite this, the player could reopen the complaint in the future if they wished to proceed.

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.