Chips.gg Casino Review

The player from the United Kingdom believes the casino is exploiting his gambling disorder by continuing to accept his large deposits despite being aware of his mental health and gambling problems. He accuses the casino of running a money laundering operation and not supplying requested data, including slot results. The player has also communicated suicidal thoughts.

The player from Norway had deposited money on chips.gg for a 200% deposit bonus and had made a single bet exceeding $5.00. The bet was not blocked, but it had resulted in the loss of the deposited funds, which he equated to a withdrawal difficulty at the casino. The player had claimed there was no notification about the max bet amount. The casino had argued that the player was required to agree to their terms of service, including bonus/rollover terms, upon registration. They had also provided several ways to avoid such situations. The player had consented to share his full account data for review, but the casino had considered the information confidential. Despite the player's insistence that bet blocking was possible, the casino had maintained that their current system was the most effective. We had concluded that the casino had taken sufficient steps to inform players about their terms and conditions, and therefore, we could not provide further assistance to the player.

The player from Brazil had experienced issues with two-factor authentication (2FA) in the casino, which had prevented him from accessing his old account and his winnings. The player had changed his phone and lost access to the 2FA app. The casino had been unresponsive to his requests for a reset of the 2FA. The player was unable to provide this as he no longer had access to the old wallets used for deposits. The issue remained unresolved as the player was unable to provide the necessary proof to the casino.

The player from Portugal was unable to withdraw his remaining balance of approximately 1300USDT from Chips.gg. The casino had claimed that some of his bets were 'value bets' and had requested that he wager about 6k USDT before he could make further withdrawals. No evidence of 'value betting' or KYC request had been provided by the casino. The player also stated that he used no bonuses and that all bets were placed on the sportsbook. However, we were unable to assist as our expertise was limited to online casino-related issues and did not extend to sports betting. We advised the player to seek help from websites that specialize in sports betting issues and offered to provide a list of such websites.

The player from New Zealand experienced account closure after reaching a withdrawal amount of $703 USD. His access is blocked and the casino support is unresponsive. We closed the complaint because the player stopped responding.

The player from Quebec reported that the casino had halted his withdrawals without a clear reason. Despite his efforts to communicate with the casino management, his issue remained unresolved. He had been a regular player at the casino and had deposited a significant amount of money over the years. The casino claimed that the player's withdrawals were temporarily blocked for account verification and that his account was now fully operational. However, the player disputed this and insisted that he was still unable to withdraw his funds. The casino then suggested that the player completed the KYC process, but the player refused, demanding proof of a legitimate gambling license first. Despite our efforts to mediate, the player's refusal to undergo KYC verification prevented us from assisting further, leading to the rejection of this complaint.

The player from Romania had deposited money into her Chips.gg account which she then turned into a larger sum. However, when she had attempted to withdraw the winnings, she had received a message stating she had reached her withdrawal limit despite never having withdrawn before. Support had not responded to her queries for seven days. Later, the player reported that she had been able to withdraw. However, the casino claimed that the player's account had been temporarily blocked for necessary account verification, and the account was fully operational at the time of filing the complaint. The casino had provided evidence showing consistent communication with the player and her continued use of the platform. We had concluded that the complaint system was misused and the player's claim of a blocked account was false. The complaint was therefore rejected.

The player from Spain has had his account blocked unexpectedly. The player seeks clarification on why the account was banned. Since the player is a former employee of the casino, we rejected the complaint.