Cosmobet Casino Review

The player from Poland had a satisfactory initial experience at the casino, but his account was limited after a week. He requested a withdrawal of 631 euros, but verification processes have stalled, and attempts to contact support through live chat and email have been unsuccessful. The player later confirmed that the account was verified and the withdrawal received, therefore we marked the complaint as resolved.

The player from Portugal had a $3,000 balance in the casino. The account had already been verified, but after a second verification request, he experienced delays in withdrawing his funds. The casino's support email and website were also reportedly having issues. We attempted to assist by requesting further details from the player, but due to a lack of response from him, the complaint was rejected.

The player from Germany struggled with the MasterCard verification process because the support chat on the casino's website was not working and the contact email was missing. The player eventually verified the card and received the winnings after finding a working email address. The complaint was marked as resolved by us after the player confirmed the issue was resolved.

The player from Lithuania had followed the casino's request for a video verification. After doing so, the casino confiscated their winnings, citing a violation of terms and conditions. The casino then only offered to return the latest deposit minus a 20 percent fee. After reviewing the case and the evidence provided by the casino, it was concluded that the player had breached the casino's terms by having multiple accounts. Consequently, the complaint was rejected as unjustified.

The player from Italy who had self-excluded from the casino for five years had been able to open a new account with the same personal data. Despite his request for a refund, the casino had initially been non-responsive. The player had provided all necessary documentation to prove his self-exclusion. Upon our team's intervention and request for the casino's response, the casino had offered a refund to the player. The player had accepted the offer, and the issue had been successfully resolved.

The UK player had deposited £180 at the casino and successfully won £2400. However, after passing the KYC verification, the casino had deducted the entire balance and only allowed withdrawal for the last deposit made, citing a violation of rules 9 and 10 in the terms and conditions. The player had claimed these terms were not visible from any mobile phone browser. The casino had responded by stating that the player had consented to the terms upon registration and that they were suspected of fraudulent actions, which led to the suspension of payouts. The player had insisted on the inaccessibility of the terms and conditions from a mobile phone. We had attempted to gather more information from the player but received no response, leading us to reject the complaint.

The player from the United Kingdom had requested account closure due to a lack of control over spending. The player had still been able to make deposits after the request, which had led to further issues. The casino had failed to respond or action the request, leading to the player seeking assistance from the Complaints Team. Evidence of the closure request had been provided by the player. The casino had eventually closed the account but there had been issues with a pending withdrawal and missing deposits. The player had confirmed receipt of the withdrawal but was unable to provide proof for the missing deposits. The player had decided to stop pursuing the issue and expressed satisfaction with the account closure. The Complaints Team had marked the complaint as resolved.

The player from the United Kingdom had signed up for a casino and won a reasonable amount. He was waiting for account verification to withdraw the winnings but was then concerned about the credibility of the casino. After submitting his ID, proof of address, and credit card details, he had been asked to use his passport for verification. The player complied and his account had been successfully verified, with his withdrawal marked as successful. However, he was still waiting for the withdrawal to be processed. We had advised him that withdrawals could take up to 14 days to process and to contact us if he didn't receive his winnings within this period. However, the player had not responded to our follow-up messages, leading us to conclude the complaint process.

The player from Ukraine had had an issue with withdrawing his own funds from an online casino. After depositing $300, he had requested a withdrawal of $190. His account had been verified, but the casino had blocked his account and informed him that he could only withdraw after 6 months. The player had communicated with the casino, and even after additional verification, the casino had continued to refuse his withdrawal. After the complaint had been raised, the casino had paid out the player's funds and blocked his account. The issue had then been resolved.

A player from the United Kingdom had encountered issues with the verification and withdrawal process at an online casino. Despite having provided a clear passport and driver's license, the casino had requested additional identification. After the verification had been completed, the player faced another issue concerning the withdrawal of his £65000 winnings due to a monthly limit set by the casino. We had explained that the withdrawal limits were set by the casino and we couldn't intervene. The player did not respond to further communication, which resulted in the complaint being rejected.

The player from Germany had a balance of €3,000 and an open bet. After the verification of his account and a subsequent withdrawal request, the casino insisted on an additional video verification. This was sent and confirmed as received, but thereafter, there was no response from the casino, leading the player to feel his withdrawal process was being deliberately delayed. The player felt the casino was avoiding the payout. Despite our intervention and communication with the casino, the player decided to continue playing and depleted his balance before the verification process was completed. The player's account was eventually closed at his request. We concluded that the casino followed standard KYC procedures, and the delay in the verification process was within normal parameters. The player's decision to play over his balance and close his account prematurely resulted in the rejection of his complaint.

The player from the United Kingdom, who was struggling with a gambling addiction, had repeatedly requested self-exclusion from a casino but continued to be able to make deposits. He had not received any response from the casino regarding his requests. We attempted to investigate his concern but due to his lack of response to our queries, we were unable to proceed further. Consequently, the complaint was rejected.

The player from Singapore had experienced verification issues with Cosmobet, which had prevented him from withdrawing his winnings of $39. Despite having submitted all required documents, his withdrawal attempts were initially rejected. However, the issue had been resolved since then. After a lengthy verification process, the player had been able to withdraw his funds. Consequently, we had marked this complaint as 'resolved'.

The player from the United Kingdom was having difficulties making a withdrawal due to delays in the verification process. The issue had been thoroughly investigated by our team, who had explained the importance and procedures of the KYC process to the player. The player later confirmed that the issue had been resolved. Consequently, we had marked the complaint as 'resolved' in our system.

The player from Sweden felt deceived over bonus delivery at Cosmobet. After she reached the betting goal of €1,500 expecting a bonus, no bonuses appeared in her account, and the support email was non-functional, hindering communication. She claimed to have followed the same process with other casinos and received her bonuses. However, we believe that the player had misunderstood the bonus rules. The disputed amount seems to be the maximum potential bonus, not the guaranteed winnings. The player's balance was €0.03 after she completed the wagering requirements. We concluded that the issue had arisen from a misunderstanding of the bonus rules rather than a justified complaint. The complaint was therefore rejected.

The player from Nigeria had had a problem with the account verification process at an online casino. Despite initial verification, her subsequent attempts with different identification had been rejected. After she submitted her complaint to us, the casino had contacted her and verified her identity. We had confirmed with the player that the issue had been resolved and marked the complaint as 'resolved' in our system.

The player from the UK requested self-exclusion, but despite multiple emails, his account remains open and active. He continues to gamble and wishes for his funds to be refunded and the account to be closed urgently.

The player from Hungary had complained about withdrawal issues at Cosmobet. He had claimed to have wagered his deposit more than once and received cashback, but the casino had insisted that he hadn't wagered enough. We had initiated a dialogue with the player and the casino to resolve the issue. The casino had transferred 220 EUR to the player's account, but the player did not respond to our request for confirmation. Due to the player's lack of response, we were unable to continue the investigation and had to reject the complaint.

The Complaints Team had reopened the complaint upon the player's request. Despite initially deeming the player ineligible for a refund, the casino had decided to return the player's stakes as a gesture of goodwill. The player had confirmed that their issue was successfully resolved, leading the Complaints Team to mark the complaint as 'resolved'.

The player from the United Kingdom had won £10,000 and attempted to withdraw £7500 on the same day. However, the casino's site was down for maintenance, and the player had been unable to contact anyone via email, live chat, or Twitter. We had reached out to the player for further information and extended the response time by 7 days. Despite our attempts, the player did not respond, so we were unable to investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Ireland had encountered an issue with his €25 deposit at the online casino. Despite his attempts to communicate with the casino's support, he had received no response. We had advised the player to contact his payment provider for an investigation, as the casino's options were limited in such situations. Despite extending the complaint's deadline by a week, the player did not respond, leading us to reject the complaint due to lack of further information.

The player from Germany has completed the verification process, wagered bonus, and attempted to withdraw 3500 euros through Jeton. However, the withdrawal was cancelled and further ID verification was requested, despite previous successful verification. The player is frustrated with the perceived delay tactic. The complaint was resolves as the player got verified and received his payout.