CasinoVibes Review

The player from New Zealand had a negative experience while playing a slot game, criticizing its low return to player (RTP) rate. The user was in disbelief that the game had passed the RTP test with gambling authorities. However, we had explained to the player that without any evidence proving that something unfair was going on, we could not proceed with the case. We had extended the timer for response by 7 days but the player did not respond, leading us to reject the complaint due to lack of further information.

The player from Kuwait had discovered that the CasinoVibes, where he had recently deposited $1,290 CAD, was associated with Arcanebet Casino, where his account had been closed for gambling addiction. He was then requesting a full refund from CasinoVibes, arguing he should not have been able to register. The player had provided evidence indicating an affiliation between the two casinos. Despite this, we had explained that self-exclusion from one platform did not extend to others, especially when the casino was licensed by Curaçao. We had also informed him about the Self-Exclusion Assistance Tool. As the player did not directly inform CasinoVibes about his intention to self-exclude due to a gambling problem, we could not proceed with the complaint and had to reject it.

The player from Kuwait had sought a refund of 690 CAD after reopening his account, which had been previously closed due to gambling issues. The player's account was initially closed on 26.09 and was reopened the following day, 27.09. The player had contacted the casino for a refund but was denied because he had requested to reopen his account. After reviewing the case and the player's communication with the casino, we determined that the player's request for account closure seemed to have stemmed from a desire for a bonus rather than genuine gambling difficulties. Therefore, we concluded that the player was not entitled to a refund and the complaint was closed.

The player from Ireland had his winnings from a bonus confiscated due to accusations of opening multiple accounts in the casino. Taking into consideration circumstances of the case we decided to reject the complaint as unjustified.

The player struggles to withdraw his balance for an unknown reason. It came to light that the website the player registered at was a copy of the official casino website, and it seems part of a scam operation. Unfortunately, the website in question was no longer accessible, There was nothing we could do to help. As this complaint is not related to the official casino in any way there was no option but for it to be rejected.