Fairspin Casino Review

The player from Hungary had won a total of 5000 USDT and requested a withdrawal of 3000 USDT. However, due to an alleged doubled money glitch in a game, the casino had cancelled one of the withdrawals. Consequently, the final amount in the player's account had dropped significantly without a clear explanation. The player later asked to close the complaint after receiving an explanation and some compensation from the casino. As per the player's request, we had rejected the complaint.

The player from Brazil had encountered issues with Fairspin, as his winnings had not been deposited since January 29th, despite the casino's website having indicated that the transaction was complete. The issue had been resolved when Fairspin contacted the player and informed him that the winnings had been deposited into a different bank account. The player had confirmed this and expressed gratitude for the quick resolution of his issue. The complaint had been subsequently marked as 'resolved' by the complaints team.

The player from Brazil had experienced a delay in his withdrawal process that extended over 10 business days. Despite his account having been fully verified and his compliance with the casino's regulations, he had received no resolution from the casino's support. However, after the intervention of the Complaints Team, the casino eventually processed his withdrawal. Consequently, we had marked the complaint as resolved.

The player from Michigan had used a VPN to access the casino, deposited funds, and played. When he had tried to withdraw winnings of over $19,000, the casino had requested KYC verification. Due to errors and missing country information, the player couldn't complete this process. The account was subsequently closed and the funds were confiscated. The player had argued that the casino promoted the use of Bitcoin for gambling from restricted areas. However, we found that the player had breached the casino's rules by using a VPN to circumvent country restrictions. Despite the player's request to keep the complaint open, we had decided to reject the complaint as unjustified.

The player from Russia had difficulties with the verification process at an online casino, which prevented him from withdrawing his funds. Despite multiple attempts, the casino kept requesting additional verification. After communicating with the casino's chat and technical support for two days, the player was able to resolve the issue. We marked the complaint as 'resolved'.

The player from Sweden had deposited about $50 in XRP to Fairspin three months prior, but the money had gone missing. Despite providing all the required proofs, the issue had remained unresolved. Fairspin Casino had responded by acknowledging the issue and promptly began the process to fix the transaction. The casino confirmed that the transaction had reached the player's active balance. The player had confirmed the resolution of his issue, and we had marked the complaint as 'resolved'.

The player from Portugal had experienced consistent delays in withdrawals from the casino. Despite previous prompt payments and two years of gameplay, these recurrent delays had begun to reduce the player's trust in the reliability of the casino. The player clarified that the disputed amount was €5,000, not €50,000, and his identification had been fully approved. We had advised the player to wait at least 14 days after requesting the withdrawal before submitting a complaint. The player confirmed that the issue had been resolved, and we had subsequently closed the complaint as resolved.

The player from Portugal had reported that he had repeatedly requested account closure, but the casino had refused, resulting in a loss of 10,000 euros. He had sought assistance to resolve the issue. We had explained the difference between account closure and self-exclusion to the player and had asked for the account closure requests he had sent to the casino. However, the player did not respond to our messages and questions. As a result, we had been unable to investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Croatia had expressed difficulties in closing his account without self-exclusion. He disagreed with the casino's KYC procedures, arguing that they were unnecessarily complicated and unfair, especially regarding the withdrawal of winnings. He provided examples of other betting sites where he hadn't encountered such issues. However, as his account balance was zero, we concluded that no further assistance could be provided. The complaint was thus rejected due to the lack of funds in the player's account.

The player from Portugal, who regularly made immediate withdrawals, had reported a delay in his latest withdrawal of 700 Euros. Despite having adhered to all identification norms and being a regular player for over a year, with unchanged withdrawal methods and bank, he had faced this issue. The casino responded by acknowledging the importance of transactions and asked the player to create a new withdrawal request. They had assured him that they would complete the transaction. Following this, the player confirmed that his issue had been resolved.

The player from Argentina had experienced account closure and denial of withdrawal. The casino had claimed a violation of terms and conditions. The player, who primarily played slot machines, insisted on his innocence and demanded his withdrawal. However, after a thorough investigation and communication with the casino, it was found that the player had exploited the currency exchange rate system for an unfair advantage. This violation of the casino's terms and conditions led to the account closure and denial of withdrawal. As a result, the complaint was deemed unjustified, and the casino's actions were found to be within its terms and conditions.

The player from Sweden, after winning money at a casino, had her account blocked due to a duplicate account. She was not made aware of the existing account during registration and was only informed after lodging her winnings. She voiced her concerns about the casino not notifying her about the duplicate account during her deposits. After a long discussion without any progress and after receiving the information that the case was being handled by the regulator, the casino decided to not provide any further details regarding the matter until the regulator made the final decision. Therefore, the case was (temporarily) closed pending the regulator's decision. Later, after gathering all the necessary information and additional details from the casino, we decided to reopen and update/reject this complaint based on the regulator's decision.

The player Portugal, has tried to make two small withdrawals that normally appear promptly in their account, but six hours later, they have not received anything. Attempts to receive assistance from customer support have been unsuccessful. The player later confirmed that the issue was resolved.

The player from Brazil had his withdrawal refused due to a betting rule that was not mentioned in the terms and conditions. He was informed that he needed to bet his deposit once only on certain game types, a piece of information that had not been communicated to him earlier. The casino alleged that the player exploited a technical vulnerability in the game "Craps". After reviewing the case and the casino's terms and conditions, we determined that the casino's requirement for the player to meet the conditions of gaming activity (the total amount of bets needed to equal the amount of the last deposit) in slot type games before withdrawal seemed reasonable. Despite the player's disagreement with this, we recognized the casino's approach as a standard practice in such situations, and thus the player's complaint was rejected as unjustified.

The player from Lithuania had submitted a withdrawal request but did not receive his winnings. We had advised him that withdrawals could take some time due to various factors such as KYC verification and high volume of requests. The casino had claimed that the transaction was completed successfully. However, despite our attempts to follow up, the player had not responded. As a result, we could not investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Portugal had reported a withdrawal issue with a casino. The withdrawal amount had been processed but had not appeared on her credit card. The casino confirmed that the transactions had been processed successfully and were marked as "Successful". The player had been asked to wait for up to 10 days for the withdrawal to be credited, as per the casino's policy. However, the player reported not receiving the funds even after the specified period. The casino had provided some transaction details for the player to check with her bank. Despite the casino's insistence that the transaction had been processed correctly, the player's bank could not confirm the receipt of the transfer. We rejected the complaint as the player did not provide further details required for us to continue to investigate the matter.

The Japanese player's account has been blocked due to allegations of exploiting a technical vulnerability, which he denies. The casino has yet to provide a clear explanation or evidence to support their claim.

The player from Switzerland has been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, their payout hasn’t been received yet. The complaint was rejected because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Argentina was waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Then, the withdrawal was canceled, and some of his winnings has been confiscated. Basically, the deducted amount represents a difference between the complainant's deposit and a higher amount that was credited to his casino account by mistake as a result of a technical issue (incorrect calculation of the TFS tokens). Later, the complaint was rejected because the player did not respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Russia was blocked without further explanation. The player reported that his account was blocked and a significant amount of money was seized by the casino. The casino claimed the player violated their terms and conditions based on a security check and an investigation with the game provider, leading to the cancellation of the player's withdrawal and account closure. We attempted to resolve the issue by asking the casino for more details. However, the casino was unable to provide information that would justify its actions without disclosing sensitive security protocols. The casino maintained its position, emphasizing the confidentiality of its security checks. We did not receive any new evidence, and we closed the complaint as unresolved due to the lack of conclusive information supporting the casino's decision. After a significant time, the casino contacted us with additional information and details supporting its claims and decision. Considering all the gathered information and details from both the casino and the complainant, we decided to reject the complaint.

The player from Russia had his account in the casino blocked and his balance withheld. We advised the player to turn directly to the regulator as the best option to solve his issue, and we temporarily closed the case, waiting for the regulator's final decision. Later, after a closer investigation and reviewing the case on our side again, we reconsidered our decision, and although it turned out the player did not file a complaint to the regulator, we decided to side with him. However, new facts were found, so we asked the complainant for more details and information. We were forced to reject the complaint because the player did not respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Indonesia has submitted a withdrawal request less than two weeks prior to contacting us. Winnings haven’t been obtained up to this day. The player later confirmed that the withdrawal was processed successfully, therefore we marked this complaint as resolved.

The player from Malaysia has requested a withdrawal. Unfortunately, the payment seems to be delayed. The player stated soon after that she had received her payment but had a new issue with a lost deposit. The payment was traced to a wallet on the blockchain. After investigating further, the casino responded and stated that the amount had successfully been credited to the player's account. Consequently, the complaint was resolved.

The player from Russia had his account blocked without further explanation. The player was accused of taking advantage of a technical vulnerability when playing with the bonus, and consequently had their account blocked and entire balance confiscated. After reviewing the evidence we decided that the player should be eligible to receive their real money balance which was accumulated before the use of the bonus. The casino paid some of this to the player, but stated that this is all that would be paid. Consequently, the complaint was closed as 'unresolved'. The casino contacted us and stated that the complaint had been escalated to the regulator, who had decided in favor of the casino, and requested that the case be reassessed. After reviewing the evidence provided by the casino supporting the player's involvement in collusive activities, it was decided that the casino has acted in accordance with its terms and the complaint was ultimately rejected.

The player from Ontario has requested a withdrawal prior to submitting this complaint. Unfortunately, their winnings haven’t been received yet. Unfortunately, the player lost his winnings before we could help, therefore, we were forced to reject this complaint.

The player from Germany has been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, their payout hasn’t been received yet. The complaint was rejected because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Switzerland has been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, their payout hasn’t been received yet. The player later confirmed that the withdrawal was processed successfully, therefore we marked this complaint as resolved.

The player's dissatisfied with the casino's overall experience as she experienced issues with deposit and withdrawal as well. The complaint was closed as the player stopped responding. The complaint was reopened at the request of the player. The casino states that the player deposits were credited, played, and lost, and also that the player's account was closed as they had registered from a restricted country. It was decided that the player should submit a complaint to the casino's licensing authority, and so the complaint was closed temporarily pending the outcome of the regulator's investigation. Upon receipt of their decision, the complaint will be reopened and updated as appropriate. We were later provided evidence that the regulator had concluded the casino had acted appropriately in this case. Consequently, the complaint was ultimately rejected.

The player from Romania has requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. The payment hasn’t been processed yet. The player later confirmed that the withdrawal was processed successfully, therefore we marked this complaint as resolved.

The player from Portugal is experiencing difficulties withdrawing funds because transactions to his preferred payment methods have been declined. The player later confirmed that the withdrawal was processed successfully, therefore we marked this complaint as resolved.

The player from Algeria is experiencing difficulties withdrawing his funds due to the limited availability of payment methods. The casino stated that part of the player's balance was sent to the player's bank account, but not all due to some bank restrictions. The rest of the balance could be withdrawn via another payment method. The player replied that they had received one amount but were still awaiting the rest of the balance, which the casino said had now been successfully withdrawn. The casino provided the player with the transaction numbers so that they could be checked by the player's bank. The player provided a bank statement showing that they had not received the amount, but could not provide any sort of response from their bank. After being asked for this multiple times, the player stopped responding so the complaint was rejected.

The player from Estonia is experiencing issues with a withdrawal due to an ongoing security check. The player later confirmed that the withdrawal was processed successfully, therefore we marked this complaint as resolved.

The player from Iceland requested a withdrawal and after a long time waiting for payment decided to file a complaint. The player received payment approximately 2 months after submitting the withdrawal request due to technical issues on the payment provider's side. The complaint is resolved.

The player requested permanent account closure, however his account has been reopened. The player asked the casino to close the account because he didn't receive the required bonus, therefore the casino could reopen it.

The player from Australia has registered an account despite her country was listed between restricted ones. Later, she asked for self-exclusion because of the gambling problem, and her account was closed. But, after some time, she managed to reopen it.