CasinoMax Review

The player, residing in Georgia, is upset about the casino blaming him for a charge that they caused during a cooldown period. He was guided to dispute the charge by customer service, after which his account was closed across all sister brands, claiming he had a chargeback. He insists that he was merely following instructions and feels unjustly treated.

The player from California had requested a withdrawal prior to submitting this complaint. Unfortunately, his winnings had not been received yet. The Complaints Team had advised the player that withdrawal delays could be typical due to factors such as KYC verification or a high volume of withdrawal requests. They had suggested waiting at least 14 days post-withdrawal request before submitting a complaint. Despite extending the response period, the player did not provide further feedback, which led to the complaint being rejected due to lack of information.

The player from the US reported that CasinoMax had refused to verify his account for payout despite the player having provided numerous documents to prove his identity and address. The player also mentioned their unsuccessful interaction with customer service. The player's attempts to validate their address with a rental agreement had been rejected by the casino, which insisted on a utility bill or bank statement from a brick-and-mortar bank, not an online app like Cash App. The casino maintained that the documents provided were insufficient for KYC purposes and did not meet their criteria, despite the player's insistence that a rental agreement was accepted by KYC standards. The player had expressed frustration and accused the casino of being a scam, while the casino reiterated the importance of verification to prevent fraud and comply with legal requirements. The Complaints Team at Casino Guru had been unable to resolve the issue due to the casino's strict document requirements and the player's inability to provide the necessary proof of address. The complaint remained unresolved as the player considered further action.

The player from Arizona had experienced delays in his Bitcoin withdrawal which exceeded the stipulated 48-hours processing time and had lasted nearly a week. The Complaints Team had advised him that withdrawal processing times could sometimes take a couple of days or even weeks due to various factors such as unfinished KYC verification or high volume of withdrawal requests. The team had recommended patience and full cooperation with the casino. The player later confirmed that he had received his payment, but expressed dissatisfaction with the casino's advertised withdrawal time frame. The issue was marked as resolved by the Complaints Team.

The player from the United States submitted the documentation needed for verification. However, the casino has not accepted her proof of address. After the player submitted the complaint, her documents were accepted and she received her winnings.

The player from United States has been accused of breaching bonus terms by placing bets greater than the allowed ones. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.