Freshbet Casino Review

The player from the United Kingdom had a balance of £20,000 and had successfully completed initial verifications. However, his recent withdrawal request was rejected, and he was undergoing a video verification process that had exceeded the advised 48-hour timeframe. The delay was causing him stress despite his continued access to the platform. The complaint was rejected as per the player's explicit request to close the case, indicating that no further assistance was needed at that time.

The player from Thailand had been allowed to register and play at Freshbet, which had heavily advertised in their country. After winning a bonus, the winnings were voided due to regional restrictions stated in the terms and conditions. Despite having been able to play and receiving a bonus initially, the casino refused to pay out the winnings. The Complaints Team had been unable to investigate further due to the player's lack of response to inquiries, which led to the rejection of the complaint.

The player from Lithuania faced issues with Freshbet, which had placed his account under a 6-month investigation after he won $3,305.20 in a slot game. Despite complying with all verification requests, the casino ignored his inquiries and stopped responding to his emails. The Complaints Team contacted the casino to inquire about the investigation timeline and decided to close the complaint as 'waiting for the decision' due to the lengthy investigation period. Eventually, the investigation concluded, and the casino allowed the player to withdraw his funds, which he confirmed receiving, leading to the resolution of the complaint.

The player from the UK requested a refund of deposits made to Freshbet Casino due to bank account closure, lack of responsible gambling measures, and breach of terms and conditions. Despite depositing hundreds of pounds, he had never made a withdrawal and had received no response from the casino. We explained that we do not handle issues related to third-party banks and that responsible gambling tools vary by casino. Since the player did not respond to our messages, the complaint was rejected.

The player from Lithuania had requested a withdrawal two weeks earlier, but after additional verification, the money was frozen. Despite completing video verification, the casino asked the player to wait without providing a timeframe. The player sought help to withdraw his winnings, which were stuck on the site. We were unable to investigate further due to the player's lack of response to our messages and questions, leading to the rejection of the complaint.

The player from Finland had wagered the second deposit and won €2149, but the casino deleted all winnings after KYC, leaving only the €50 deposit. The casino claimed that Finland was restricted for bonuses, but the player argued that this rule had been recently and improperly added to avoid payouts. After negotiations, the player accepted a settlement of €500, which was credited to his account. The matter was resolved, and the player confirmed receipt of the funds.

The player from the United Kingdom had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks before submitting this complaint. Their money had not been received yet. The delay was due to prolonged video verification, which took over two weeks despite initial promises of 48 hours. The player's account was temporarily blocked, causing significant stress. Eventually, the video verification was completed, and withdrawals were processed in stages due to weekly limits. The player confirmed receipt of all funds, resolving the issue successfully.

The player from Croatia had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks before submitting this complaint. The player stated that his winnings of 18,648 EUR were voided due to regional restrictions that were not in the terms and conditions at the time of playing. Despite the account being fully verified, the casino voided the winnings after the verification process. The Complaints Team attempted to contact the casino but received no response. Consequently, the complaint was marked as 'unresolved'.

The player from the United Kingdom had her account blocked after providing verification and requesting a withdrawal. FreshBet accused her of breaching terms by owning multiple accounts, which she denied. The player sought to regain access to her account and her winnings. We determined that opening multiple accounts violated most online casino rules. As the player admitted to knowingly creating a new account, her winnings were not honored, and the complaint was rejected.

The player from the United Kingdom, who had been previously verified, requested two withdrawals of $700 and $1600, respectively. However, more than two weeks passed, and their status remained in processing. After inquiring, the player was blocked from the chat and their account. Upon investigation, it was clarified that the player had already withdrawn $700, never requested $1600, and had their account closed per their request. The player later acknowledged a mix-up on their part, and the complaint was closed.

The player from Luxembourg claimed that Fresh-bet, despite his provision of all verification documents, rejected withdrawals multiple times and operated without a valid license. He had requested a refund for his deposits. The complaint was rejected due to the player's lack of response to our inquiries, preventing further investigation.

The player from the United Kingdom had issues depositing money and accessing free spins promised via an email promotion. Despite several interactions with customer support through live chat, the issue remained unresolved. The player deposited money, but the free spins did not activate, and even after multiple manual additions by support, the problem persisted. The Complaints Team concluded that since the player had started using the deposited funds, the bonus spins became void as per the terms and conditions. Therefore, the complaint was rejected.

The player from the UK had won £13000 at Freshbet Casino but experienced repeated withdrawal refusals due to alleged account verification issues. Additionally, the casino had blocked his account after he questioned the 96% RTP of the game he had played. Despite our efforts to communicate with the player and gather more information, he had failed to respond to our inquiries. As a result, we could not investigate further and were forced to reject the complaint.

The player from Sweden, after having met the required wagering on no deposit free spins, attempted to withdraw the winnings. Despite having a verified account, the casino had confiscated the funds. The player had not made any real money deposits at Freshbet Casino and had claimed multiple no-deposit bonuses, thus breaching the casino's rules. After reviewing the evidence provided by the casino, we had concluded that the player's complaint was unjustified due to violation of the casino's bonus terms and conditions. The player's winnings had been rightfully confiscated by the casino.

The player from Azerbaijan had submitted a withdrawal request and had completed the verification process. However, the player had not received any response. He was then asked to undergo video verification, which he complied with, but was left waiting for 11 days without any feedback. The player also mentioned that he had been banned from withdrawing. We had initiated a conversation with the casino representative who confirmed that the player had passed the video verification and had successfully made a withdrawal. The player had confirmed this resolution. The issue was thus marked as resolved.

The player from the United Kingdom was dealing with a withdrawal issue where Freshbet Casino had originally agreed to a refund, but later retracted this agreement. The player had previously informed the casino about a gambling problem. The player had deposited around £250, and some of these deposits were returned to her account. However, the casino had decided not to issue a full refund. We had attempted to resolve the issue by asking for more information and extending the response time, but the player did not respond. As a result, we were unable to further investigate and had to reject the complaint.

The player from the United Kingdom had had their account at Freshbet locked after verification, which had prevented them from withdrawing their £1447 winnings. The casino had proposed to return the original £30 deposit, but this amount was below the minimum withdrawal limit. The Complaints Team had attempted to gather more information from the player to investigate further. However, due to the player's lack of response, we had been unable to proceed with the investigation. The complaint had therefore been rejected.

The player from the United Kingdom had experienced issues with depositing money into their Freshbet account. Despite the money having left their bank account, it did not appear in their Freshbet account. The player had received assurances from support that this would be resolved. However, after three months of regular follow-ups, the issue was still unresolved. We had to reject the complaint due to the lack of response from the player, which prevented us from proceeding with the investigation or providing potential solutions to the issue.

The player from Spain had his account closed for six months without explanation and wasn't able to withdraw his money. Despite being told responses would arrive in six months, he hadn't received any communication. The player had deposited around 2000 Euros and had a balance of 3822 Euros when the account got blocked. The casino stated that the account was under investigation due to suspicious sports betting behavior. The casino had since allowed the player to withdraw funds in limited amounts. However, since the issue was sports betting-related and the Complaints Team didn't have a branch dealing with sports betting, they were unable to assist further and suggested other platforms for the player to file a sports betting-related complaint.

The player from the United Kingdom had created an account, deposited £650, and accumulated winnings. He found his account had been locked the next day due to a supposed duplicate account he was unaware of. He had requested the withdrawal of his balance, but had received no response. The casino had allowed him to withdraw his last deposit of £150, but the remaining £549.99 was not refunded and his winnings of £1,160.50 were removed. The casino had explained the account was closed due to a duplicate account, which the player was unaware of. We had requested the player's login and transaction history for both accounts from the casino. Upon review, we found that the player had originally self-excluded due to a gambling issue, thus he was not entitled to the winnings. We questioned the casino's procedure for self-excluded players and why only the last deposit was refunded. Since the casino team made their final decision, we had no choice but to classify the complaint as 'unresolved'.

The player from the UK had requested Freshbet to block the deposit function, but they had failed to respond quickly, which resulted in £1850 in additional deposits. The player had also discovered that their license appeared expired on CEG's website, despite still accepting UK players. The player had claimed to have mentioned her gambling problem to the casino before depositing, but failed to provide proof of such communication. Therefore, we had been unable to confront the casino about their supposed obligation to protect the player and request a refund on her behalf. The complaint was ultimately rejected due to the player's lack of response to our inquiries.

The player from the United Kingdom had experienced a delay in the withdrawal process. Although his previous withdrawal had been processed promptly, the current one had been delayed with a lack of clear communication from the casino. We reached out to the player for additional information to investigate further, but received no response. Therefore, we had to reject the complaint due to lack of player's cooperation.

The player from Spain had been unable to withdraw funds from the casino and had received no response from the casino's support team. Despite his account having been validated, the casino had informed him that his case was still under investigation. We had intervened and contacted the casino, which had claimed to have processed the withdrawal. However, the player did not confirm having received the funds, and despite multiple reminders, he hadn't responded to our messages. Consequently, we had to reject the complaint due to lack of player's cooperation.

The player from the United Kingdom had stated that his son, who suffered from mental health conditions, used his own bank card but registered the account under the player's name, resulting in a loss of £9700. The player believed Freshbet Casino failed to identify this irregular spending pattern and sought a refund based on the casino's terms and conditions concerning third-party payments. However, we had concluded that the casino's terms explicitly prohibited third-party payments and that the player was responsible for providing accurate personal information when creating an account. Therefore, the complaint had been rejected as the casino was not liable for funds lost from third-party accounts.

The player from the United Kingdom, who suffered from serious mental health conditions, claimed that Freshbet Casino had not recognized her excessive spending pattern, which she believed should have alerted them to her problem gambling. Despite having lost nearly £7000 and having asked the casino to close her account, she received no assistance and was then requesting a refund. The Complaints Team had asked for specific dates and proof of her deposits for further investigation. However, the case was ultimately closed due to unspecified reasons.

The player from the UK had requested a refund of £1,456 in deposits from Freshbet Casino. Despite having self-exclusion measures in place in another casino, this non-Gamstop casino had allowed the player to deposit and later blocked the account without reimbursing the deposits. The player had argued that the self-exclusion from MyStake Casino should have extended to Freshbet Casino, as they were both operated by Onyxion and shared similarities. However, we had clarified that these two casinos operated independently and did not share player databases. Despite the player's insistence, we found no basis for the claim in the terms and conditions or through the Licensing Authority. Therefore, we had rejected the complaint as unjustified.

The player from Denmark had encountered issues with his bets on roulette at Freshbet. His bets had been rejected due to technical errors, but the money had not been returned to his balance. Despite having provided evidence of these errors from Evolution support, Freshbet had maintained that the bets proceeded without any issues and refused to refund the money. Additionally, the player's bet history had been cleared without explanation. We attempted to mediate the situation by contacting Freshbet multiple times but received no response. The complaint was eventually marked as 'unresolved' due to the lack of cooperation from the casino. We advised the player to contact the Curacao eGaming Authority for further assistance.

The player from the United Kingdom had raised a complaint regarding suspicious deposit transactions to Freshbet. The descriptor used for these deposits appeared as a company the player had no relation with. Despite reaching out to both Freshbet and its 'sister site' Mystake.com, she had not received a response. After investigating the issue, we explained to the player that many online casinos used neutral names for transactions to protect player interests and privacy. We assured her that there was no need for concern as her deposit had been successfully credited to her casino account and she was able to play without issues. As a result, the complaint was rejected.

The player from the United Kingdom had been prevented from withdrawing winnings of £5000 from the online casino. Despite being within his weekly withdrawal limit, the system indicated a pending withdrawal. The player alleged that the casino was involved in illegal gambling and had initiated fraud and chargeback investigations. However, since the player had lost his balance while playing, we couldn't assist him further. The player was solely responsible for his account, active balance, and all bets. Therefore, we had rejected the complaint due to the player's loss of winnings and lack of entitlement to a refund.

The player from North Macedonia had his account suddenly blocked without any explanation. He had been informed that his account was under investigation for a minimum of 6 months. The player, who had engaged in pre-game and in-play sports betting, had requested a payout of over $1870 USD and a resolution for a pending bet. We had advised the player to seek assistance from websites that specialized in sports betting, as our team lacked the necessary insight to advise on such matters. Consequently, we had to reject the complaint due to our inability to provide the necessary assistance.

The player from the UK deposited a considerable sum and won twice, accumulating a total of £2500. After a withdrawal request of £2260, his access to the casino was abruptly blocked on the third day, which was the designated day for withdrawals. The player later informed us that his winnings were paid out and we closed the complaint as resolved.

The player from Italy deposited money into the casino over 24 hours ago and has not received credit for the deposit yet. The player later informed us that her issue has been resolved, so we closed the complaint.

The player from United Kingdom has requested a withdrawal prior to submitting this complaint. Unfortunately, their winnings haven’t been received yet. The complaint was rejected because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions. The player later sent us a reopen request confirming he received his winnings, therefore we marked the complaint as resolved.

The player from Greece tried to withdraw her winnings, but the casino decided to perform an account check. We rejected the complaint because it was sports betting-related but later we received information from the player that she eventually received her winnings. The complaint was resolved.