Casinozer Review

A player from Portugal had had trouble contacting customer service at an online casino, and had had a pending withdrawal while their account was being verified. After the Complaints Team had gotten involved, the player had informed that all issues had been resolved. Consequently, we had marked the complaint as 'resolved' in our system.

The player from Germany had won 893 euros on blackjack at Casinozer. After the player had requested a withdrawal of 500 euros, the casino had closed the account and refunded the initial deposits (a total of 588 euros), but it did not pay the winnings, leaving a deficit of 505 euros. The player's account had been verified and they had not used any bonuses. Despite attempts to communicate with the casino, the casino had not provided a reason for blocking the account and confiscating the winnings. We had asked the casino to respond to the complaint, but we did not receive a response despite multiple inquiries. Consequently, we had marked the complaint as 'unresolved', which could have negatively affected the casino's rating. We also had advised the player to contact the Curaçao Antillephone N.V. to submit a complaint.

The player from Portugal had faced issues with account verification at Casinozer Casino despite having previously had the account successfully validated. He had sent numerous proofs of address to the casino but had not received any response. The player had suggested this was an obstacle set by the casino to avoid paying out funds totalling 2350€. After exchanging 83 emails with the casino, his account had finally been verified and the funds were transferred to his account. We had marked the complaint as 'resolved' in our system.

The player from Morocco had experienced an account closure by Casinozer and confiscation of his deposited money and winnings while he was playing roulette. He had been a player since 2021 and his account was blocked in January 2023. The player had deposited €3000 to get 3000 free spins as part of a no-wager promotion by Casinozer. The casino had claimed that the player had used an 'opposite bets' strategy to benefit from the bonuses and had discovered a network of seven linked accounts abusing promotions. After reviewing the evidence that the casino had provided, we had concluded that the player had breached the casino's terms and conditions, thus justifying the account closure and confiscation of funds.

The player from Portugal had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting the complaint. The payment had not been processed yet. The Complaints Team had advised the player that withdrawal processing could take some time, possibly due to unfinished KYC verification or a high volume of withdrawal requests. They suggested waiting at least 14 days after requesting the withdrawal before submitting a complaint. Despite extending the timer for a response, the player did not reply to the team's messages and questions. As a result, the complaint was rejected due to lack of communication from the player.

The player from Switzerland had self-excluded himself from a group of casinos but was still able to open an account and play at Casinozer, which was part of the same group. The player believed this to be a system error and demanded a refund. The casino and our team had pointed out that self-exclusion at one casino did not automatically apply to associated casinos, especially those licensed in Curacao. The player maintained that Casinozer's staff had told him he should not have been able to play due to his blacklist status at other sister casinos. Despite this, we had rejected the case as we considered the player not entitled to a refund. The player then sought legal help and informed us that Casinozer had issued a full refund after he filed a legally sound complaint. Consequently, we marked this case as 'resolved'.