Galactic Wins Casino Review

The player from Alberta had an issue with the withdrawal of $900 that he earned from a 'log in free spins' promotion. The casino claimed that the player had over-betted, and he unsuccessfully asked for his gaming history to review these bets. Communication with the casino then stopped. Eventually, the casino provided the player's gaming history, which showed bets over 10% of the bonus amount. The complaint was rejected due to this evidence of over-betting.

The player from Mexico had their $5500 withdrawal rejected by the casino due to apparently making bets higher than 10% of the bonus value. We reviewed the bonus terms and found that the casino's actions aligned with industry standards. Despite offering the player a chance to provide game history and further communication, no response was received. Consequently, the complaint was rejected due to lack of player response.

The player from Finland had reported an issue with the casino's KYC process while he was trying to withdraw his €55 winnings. He had been asked to provide photographs of two cards used for deposit, one of which was a virtual card through Skrill and the other a terminated physical card. Despite having provided other verification documents, the player had claimed that the casino kept requesting these specific items. The issue was eventually resolved after the player provided extensive information, including bank statements from the past year.

The player from Brazil had issues with accessing slots by the game provider Global Games on the Galactic Casino site whenever he was logged into the account. Despite multiple complaints to customer service and attempts to resolve the issue, he still encountered an error message. The player reported that the issue persisted even after the casino informed him it had been resolved. He also clarified that the issue did not result in any loss of balance and that he did not have a withdrawable balance at that time. After reviewing the player's communication with the casino, we concluded that we could not assist in this case as the difficulties were with a specific game provider, and no real funds were lost. Consequently, the complaint was closed.

The player from New Zealand had experienced issues with withdrawal at an online casino. The player had claimed a bonus of $4 and encountered difficulty withdrawing their winnings. Upon reviewing the casino's bonus terms and the player's betting history, we discovered that the player had exceeded the maximum bet limit multiple times during the wagering period. As the player had breached the terms, we concluded the complaint as unjustified and had to reject it.

The player from Brazil had requested a withdrawal after playing with a bonus. Galacticwins casino had cancelled the deposit, reset his balance to zero, and invalidated his bet points, resulting in a loss of over 600 euros. Despite having reached out to the support team, he had considered the responses unsatisfactory. The player had claimed that the casino's bonus rollover progress was not visible, and there were no warnings when a bet above the permitted amount was made. However, the casino's representative had stated that the player breached the maximum allowed bet rule, which led to the confiscation of his winnings. Despite our efforts to communicate with the player for further clarification, we had received no response. As a result, we were unable to investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Peru had attempted to make his first withdrawal from an online casino. However, the casino had canceled the withdrawal, erased his account balance, and blocked his access to his account. The Complaints Team had reached out to the player for more information to better understand the situation, particularly regarding KYC verification, use of bonuses, and the casino's explanation for their actions. The team had extended the response time by seven days. However, the player did not respond within the given time frame, which led to the rejection of the complaint due to lack of further investigation.

The player from New Zealand had reported an issue with a delayed withdrawal from an online casino. Despite having received a confirmation email a month prior, the player hadn't received the payment and had been given inconsistent information about the withdrawal status by the casino support. We reached out to the player with several questions to better understand the situation but received no response. Consequently, they couldn't investigate the issue further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Serbia had his account blocked by the casino when he tried to withdraw winnings. The casino initially cited the sudden unsupported status of Serbia as the reason for the account closure. When the casino was contacted, the Complaints Team was informed that the account block was a mistake and the player's account had been reactivated. The player was then able to submit a withdrawal request. However, the withdrawal request was put on hold because of incomplete KYC verification. After the player had provided the necessary documents, the casino confirmed receipt and proceeded with the withdrawal process. The player confirmed the receipt of his winnings and the casino confirmed that the player could continue playing on their platform. The issue had been resolved satisfactorily.

The player from Finland had faced an issue with the withdrawal of winnings derived from a 'free cash' bonus at an online casino. After reaching a balance of 99€, the casino had voided the winnings due to the bonus being 'expired', although there was no clear indication of it being a bonus or its terms. The casino had acknowledged that their decision to void the winnings due to the bonus expiration clause was not fair to the player, and had agreed to reinstate the player's winnings and process a payout, once the player had completed the required KYC procedure. After the casino had reinstated the winnings, the player had confirmed receipt of the payout, resolving the issue.

The player from Canada had had issues withdrawing $1200 from his account at Galactic Wins Casino. The casino had cancelled his withdrawal request, citing a violation of bonus fund terms and conditions. Despite the player having forfeited the bonus funds, the casino had not responded and his balance had been reduced to $5. After the Complaints Team had intervened, the casino had provided game history and claimed that the player had violated their bonus terms by playing non-allowed games. The player had disputed this, stating he had been using real funds. The casino had agreed to pay out $100, the maximum cash-out for the promotion claimed. The player had been dissatisfied but had accepted the offer due to the casino's low rating and number of open complaints. The payment had been successfully transferred to the player.

The player from Finland had raised a complaint against Galactic Wins Casino, stating that they had limited his payout to 100 euros from his 386 euros win. He had claimed that the casino had justified this by saying he played 'forbidden' games. After discussing the issue with both parties and gathering all the necessary details, we asked them to reconsider their decision because we considered the casino's decision to confiscate the user's winnings unjustified. Subsequently, the casino agreed to return the rest of the player's winnings. The player had confirmed that he received the disputed amount, resolving the issue.

The player from Brazil had been facing difficulties attempting to withdraw winnings from the casino. Despite assurances from the casino that the withdrawal would be processed, the funds had not arrived. After the complaints team's intervention and a series of communications, the player confirmed that she had received her winnings, albeit with a deduction of 358 reais. Consequently, we marked the complaint as 'resolved'.

The player from South Africa had won R9000 from free spins, but the winnings were voided due to an alleged exceeding of the bonus terms and conditions. The player had acknowledged exceeding the bonus limits after the winnings were voided. Upon review of the terms and conditions, we had confirmed the player breached the maximum allowed bet. Despite extending the response period, the player had failed to respond to our messages, leading to the closure of the complaint.

The player from South Africa had submitted withdrawal and verification documents to Galactic Wins Casino two weeks prior, but had not received payment despite numerous emails. The live chat function was also non-existent. The player claimed that her winnings had been reduced from R3900 to R1500 without clear explanation. We had asked the player for further details on the bonus she used to accumulate her winnings, as it was common practice for winnings to be capped upon completion of bonus wagering. However, the player ceased communication before providing this information. Consequently, we were unable to continue the investigation or propose a potential resolution.

The player from Nigeria reported that their account had been blocked on Galactic Win Casino and their winnings were withheld. The casino accused the player of being connected to another account, which the player denied. After the Complaints Team's investigation and review of evidence provided by the casino, it was concluded that the player indeed had connections with another account. Despite the player's insistence on their innocence, the complaint was rejected due to the evidence provided by the casino.

The player from Brazil had deposited 50 reais, received a bonus and had managed to win 8000 reais. Despite having met the bonus requirements, his 5000 reais withdrawal request had been denied, and all his winnings were confiscated. The casino had returned only the initial deposit. The player's account had been verified and the winning bet had been on slot games. The casino had informed the player via email about the confiscation of the money but did not respond further. We had asked the player for additional information about the bonus received and the bets made, but the player did not respond. As a result, we were unable to investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from New Brunswick had been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, she had not received her payout. We had advised her that withdrawal processing could take up to two weeks and might be delayed due to factors like KYC verification or a high volume of withdrawal requests. We extended the complaint resolution timer by 7 days, but unfortunately, the player did not respond within the given timeframe. As a result, we were unable to investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Brazil had won $900 after using 10 free spins, but the casino had set a rollover requirement of $7,000 instead of the expected $1,560 (calculated as 60 times the original $26). The player had claimed that this was the second time such an issue had occurred. The casino had responded by explaining that the player had existing wagering requirements from previous bonuses, which were added to the new bonus. We had found this practice fair for consecutive no-deposit bonuses. The player had been given the option to clear the existing wager balance by making a deposit and claiming a new promotion. We had recommended the casino to clarify these rules in their terms and conditions to avoid future confusion. The player did not raise further objections, leading us to reject the complaint.

The player from Finland had been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, his payout hadn't been received by that time. After he submitted his complaint, he confirmed that he had completed the KYC process and the casino had approved his withdrawal. The player had requested an extension of the complaint timer to 7 days. Later, he notified us that the casino had paid out his winnings. Consequently, we had marked the complaint as 'resolved' in our system.

The player from South Africa had submitted a withdrawal request less than two weeks before contacting us. Winnings hadn't been obtained up to that day. The player had received a partial payment of 1500, despite having won 6800. After investigating, we discovered that the online casino had a maximum cashout limit on bonuses, which was clearly stated in their terms and conditions. The player's remaining winnings were therefore confiscated according to these rules. Despite our efforts to communicate with the player for further clarification, the player did not respond, leading us to close the complaint.

The player from South Africa had submitted a withdrawal request less than two weeks prior to contacting us. Winnings hadn't been obtained up to that day. Despite our attempts to gain more information to assist with the issue, the player failed to respond to our queries. As a result, we were unable to investigate the matter further. The complaint had been rejected due to lack of cooperation from the player's side.

The player from Brazil had had a withdrawal of 500 BRL denied by the casino due to allegations of exceeding the maximum bet limit, a claim which the player had disputed. Despite his attempts to contact the casino and request transaction history, the casino had not responded. The player was then seeking a refund of his confiscated winnings. We had attempted to understand the situation better by asking the player some questions, but unfortunately, he did not respond. Consequently, we could not investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from South Africa had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks before submitting this complaint but had not received her money yet. This had been her first withdrawal attempt from the casino. Despite the casino's claim of having processed the payment, the player had not received any proof of payment. The casino had approved her withdrawal after completing the KYC verification. The Complaints Team had extended the complaint resolution period twice, but the player did not respond to further inquiries. Consequently, we had to reject the complaint due to a lack of response from the player.

The player from Chile had his bonus winnings confiscated and his withdrawal request cancelled by the casino. Upon receiving the complaint, we analyzed the casino's Bonus Terms and asked the player for additional details about the specific bonus he had used and the amounts of both the deposit and the bonus awarded. Despite extending the response time, the player did not provide the required information. Consequently, we were compelled to reject the complaint due to the player's lack of response, which hindered any further investigation or potential resolution of the issue.

The player from India had signed up with Galacticwins.com and had won Rs. 25,000 INR. When she tried to withdraw her winnings, she was informed that her withdrawal had been cancelled due to betting on non-allowed games. Despite her attempts to contact support, she had received unsatisfactory responses. Upon reviewing the case, we contacted the casino for confirmation. The casino responded by stating that the player had been informed of the Terms and Conditions of the promotion in various ways, including through emails and on the promotion page. They further confirmed that the player had placed bets on Live Casino while her wager requirement was still active, which led to the decline of her withdrawal request. We had suggested that the casino should restrict games that cannot be played with a bonus at the software level to avoid such issues. The player had proposed a compromise, asking the casino to deduct winnings related to non-allowed games and reinstate the remaining winnings. As a goodwill gesture, the casino had agreed to pay the maximum cash-out amount of Rs. 5,000 INR as per the bonus terms and conditions. The player had accepted this resolution, and the complaint had been marked as resolved.

The player from Canada had claimed to have won 10K but only received 10 dollars. In an attempt to understand the situation, we had asked the player several questions regarding his winnings, deposits, and KYC verification status. However, despite extending the response deadline by 7 days, we had received no feedback from the player. Due to this lack of response, we were unable to further investigate the claim and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Finland won money using free spins. After a successful withdrawal request, the money disappeared from the game account but never appeared in the personal account. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Japan reports a month-long delay in withdrawal from the casino. Despite assurances that a transaction would be completed, the withdrawal is still not processed. This is the second such delay that the player has encountered. Since the casino confirmed issues with the payment provider had been fixed and the funds successfully transferred to the player, we closed the case as resolved.

The player from Mexico had requested a withdrawal prior to submitting this complaint. Unfortunately, his winnings hadn't been received yet. The Complaints Team had advised the player to be patient and wait at least 14 days after requesting the withdrawal, as delays might have been due to unfinished KYC verification or high volume of withdrawal requests. The team had extended the timer by 7 days for the player to respond, but due to lack of response, they were unable to investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Malaysia had raised a complaint against GALATICWINS Casino, alleging that his withdrawal request of MYR 500 had been denied unjustly. According to the player, the casino had accused him of playing non-allowed games, although he claimed to have only played slot games. The casino had provided the player's game history, which revealed that several overbets had been made at the start of the bonus wagering. Despite multiple attempts to reach out to the player for further clarification, there was no response. As a result, we were unable to proceed with the investigation and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Brazil had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. The payment hadn't been processed yet. The Complaints Team had advised the player to wait for at least 14 days after requesting the withdrawal before submitting a complaint, as delays could have been due to unfinished KYC verification or a high volume of withdrawal requests. The team had extended the timer for response by 7 days. However, due to a lack of response from the player, the complaint was rejected.

The player from Ireland made a deposit and won 2,450 euro, which was later cancelled by the casino. Despite numerous attempts at communication, the player has received no response. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

Player from Malaysia is experiencing a delay in withdrawal. The casino requested documents for account verification, which were submitted three days ago. Despite not violating any rules or accepting any bonuses, the player's withdrawal is still pending. The complaint was closed as the player stopped responding.

The player from Japan requested a withdrawal of $168 via bank transfer but was asked to try to withdraw using different payment methods. The player confirmed that after he deposited 5 dollars to the casino he was able to withdraw sucessfully.

The player from Brazil 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 from Finland had self-blocked themselves on Boo Casino but later opened an account on Galactic Wins Casino, which is operated by the same company. After losing €10,000, the player requested a refund of their deposits citing responsible gaming license conditions, but the operator refused. We’ve rejected this complaint in our system due to a lack of evidence.

The player from Finland activated a no-deposit bonus. Shortly before he completed the wagering requirements, he breached the maximum bet rule and his winnings were confiscated. The player stopped responding to our questions and comments, so we had to reject the complaint.

The player from Japan requested a withdrawal from the casino. His attempt was unsuccessful and he had a problem communicating with customer support. Since the player did not respond to our questions regarding the case, we rejected the complaint.

The player from Finland waited five days for his account to be verified. After submitting this complaint, the verification was successful. However, the player received a message from the casino that his winnings were voided because he breached the maximum bet rule when playing with a bonus. Although the player did breach the max bet rule on one occasion, we were able to help find a compromise, and the casino made a decent compensation offer that the player accepted. The player confirmed that the complaint has been resolved successfully.

The player from Brazil is experiencing difficulties withdrawing his winnings, due to ongoing verification. Afterwards the player's winnings were void due to accusations of breaching the maximum bet rule in the casino. We closed the complaint because the player stopped responding.

The player from Finland requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. Their money hasn’t been received yet. The complaint was rejected because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Brazil is frustrated with the delay in receiving their withdrawal, which is similar to the previous month's experience. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Finland requested a withdrawal and uploaded his verification documents. The casino requested a physical bank statement but the player refused to provided it. Since he gambled the money away, we had to reject the complaint.

The player from Ecuador requested a withdrawal more than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. Unfortunately, the winnings haven’t been received yet. The player later confirmed that the withdrawal was processed successfully, therefore we marked this complaint as resolved.

The player from India had his winnings from a bonus confiscated. The casino has not responded to the complaint, and it was closed as "unresolved". We ended up rejecting the complaint because the casino provided evidence supporting its claims.

The player from South Africa is experiencing difficulties withdrawing her winnings due to ongoing verification. The player later confirmed that the withdrawal was processed successfully, therefore we marked this complaint as resolved.

The player from Canada had been experiencing difficulties withdrawing his winnings due to ongoing verification. After opening the complaint, the player lost their funds, which was confirmed by the game history provided by the casino.

The player from Mexico requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. The payment was rejected because the player allegedly breached the maximum allowed bet. The complaint was rejected because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from India has been accused of breaching bonus terms by placing single bets greater than the allowed ones. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from New Zealand has not received a free spin bonus due to unclear information in the bonus T&Cs. Since the term could be interpreted both ways and casinos are free to design they bonus conditions, we decided to reject this complaint.

The player from South Africa has requested a withdrawal prior to submitting this complaint. Unfortunately, their winnings haven’t been received yet. The player later confirmed that the withdrawal was processed successfully, therefore we marked this complaint as resolved.

The player from Japan is experiencing difficulties withdrawing his winnings due to ongoing verification. After our intervention, we were able to help the player to get their winnings. The player confirmed they received the funds in the end. The Player’s complaint has been resolved successfully.

The player from Finland had an active self-exclusion in a sister casino due to a gambling problem. She believes that she should not have been able to register a new account with Galaxyno Casino. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Brazil has been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, their payout hasn’t been received yet. The casino confiscated the player's winnings because he breached the maximum allowed bet, therefore we were forced to reject this complaint.

The player's dissatisfied with his bonus as he claims that his free spins should have a different value. The casino responded and stated that the player was correct, and that they were attempting to solve the issue which was caused by a technical problem. In the meantime, the casino offered the player a cash bonus alternative so that they did not have to wait any longer. The player declined this offer, and so it was agreed that the player's deposit would be returned to them instead. Once the deposit had been received, the complaint was resolved.

The player from Brazil has been accused of breaking the T&Cs by playing restricted games while completing bonus wagering. The casino provided sufficient evidence to show that the player breached the bonus maximum bet rule. Consequently, the complaint was rejected.

The player from South Africa has been accused of breaching bonus terms by placing bets exceeding the allowed amount. After reviewing the relevant logs provided by both the player and the casino team, it became clear that the player had, in fact, placed multiple such bets while wagering his winnings from bonus free spins. As we consider the decision of the casino to be justified in this case, the player's complaint was rejected as 'Unjustified'.

The player from South Africa has requested a withdrawal prior to submitting this complaint. Unfortunately, their winnings haven’t been received yet. The player later confirmed that the withdrawal was processed successfully, therefore we marked this complaint as resolved.

The player from South Africa requested a withdrawal, but it has not been processed. The player later confirmed that the withdrawal was processed successfully, therefore we marked this complaint as resolved.

The player from Brazil had his winnings canceled without further explanation. The casino responded and stated that the player had bet more than the maximum allowed amount when using a bonus. Sufficient evidence of this was also provided, so the complaint was rejected.

The Ukrainian player's withdrawal was canceled and the winnings confiscated. The casino provided us with sufficient data confirming that the player exceeded a maximum bet amount while playing with the last No Deposit Bonus. The player claimed that the bonus balance and wagering requirements were different while playing with the bonus money, so he did not exceed the maximum bet amount. But, he was not able to prove his claims. Therefore, the complaint was closed as unjustified.

The player from New Zealand has been accused of breaching bonus terms by placing bets greater than the allowed ones. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Finland was informed that her winnings were confiscated because she played a restricted game while having an active bonus. After a discussion with the casino, the player's winnings were refunded and the issue was resolved.

The player from South Africa is criticizing promotional offer and its rules. Unfortunately, all the funds have been played and lost. After a closer examination, we ended up rejecting this complaint as unjustified.

The player from Finland reported that the casino was not paying out winnings. Additionally, the customer service was extremely slow and often unreachable. The player confirmed he had passed the identification process and eventually received his winnings after persistent efforts. The issue was marked as resolved by the Complaints Team.

The player from Brazil had requested a withdrawal on 6/12, but the transfer was not completed. Despite sending emails to support, there was no response. The casino initially rejected the withdrawal due to bets exceeding the allowed limit under bonus terms. After reviewing the game logs and considering the player's long-term engagement and potential genuine mistake, the casino reinstated her winnings and processed the withdrawal. The player confirmed receipt of the funds, resolving the issue.

The player from New Zealand had successfully met the wagering requirements for a bonus and requested a $430 withdrawal. However, the withdrawal was denied, citing a max free spins limit of $100, and the player did not receive any funds. Due to frustration, the player closed the account and was unable to access it to retrieve their full transaction history. After contacting the casino, it was confirmed that the player's winnings were incorrectly processed, and the remaining $330 was reinstated and paid to the player. The issue was resolved satisfactorily, and the player confirmed receipt of the funds.

The player from Chile had had her winnings of 522 EUR confiscated from the online casino due to allegedly placing equal, zero, or low margin bets. She had insisted that she had only played two games with consistent 1 EUR bets. The player's account had been verified and she had had a Gold VIP level status. After a series of communication and provision of betting history, the casino had admitted their error and decided to reinstate the player's winnings. The issue had been marked as resolved by the Complaints Team.

The player from South Africa had submitted a withdrawal request less than two weeks before he contacted us. The winnings hadn't been obtained up to that day. The player initially believed the online casino was a scam and had requested to be blocked from the site. However, he later decided to proceed with the case. The casino had acknowledged a delay in processing the withdrawal due to issues with the player's deposit method and KYC verification. After a series of exchanges, the casino had confirmed that the player's withdrawal of 1000 ZAR was successfully paid. The player had confirmed receipt of his winnings and had expressed gratitude for our assistance in resolving the issue.

The player from Canada had deposited in Mr Fortune Casino to avail 100 free spins for the game 'Big Bass - Float My Boat'. After depositing, she was informed by a support agent that the free spins would have to be for a different game due to issues with the original one. Despite the player's insistence that she had opted for the promotion, the casino had maintained that the deposit was credited directly to her account and not through a promotion. After several exchanges with the casino's Complaints Team, the player had accepted an alternative offer for a different game. We had then marked the complaint as 'resolved' and adjusted the disputed amount from $40 to $5.

The player from Chile had deposited funds, won €872, and requested a withdrawal but then canceled it to withdraw a larger amount. The casino allegedly invalidated all winnings over €100, stating that they had been accumulated with the use of a bonus. The player insisted that the winnings were from her own funds, not bonus money, and asked for the recovery of her remaining winnings. After a series of exchanges between the player, the Complaints Team, and the casino, the casino decided to reinstate the player's winnings of €840. The player confirmed the receipt of her winnings and expressed her gratitude for the resolution of her complaint.

The player from Mexico struggled with document verification for BooCasino and Galactic Wins. Despite initially successful withdrawals, recent winnings were not paid as the casino demanded notarized ID, bank statements, and salary slips. After providing the notarized documents, the player waited for verification. Eventually, the casino approved the documents and paid out the winnings. The issue was resolved successfully.

The player from Finland had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting his complaint. His money hadn't been received at that time. The Complaints Team had advised him that withdrawals could take time to process and might be delayed due to KYC verification or a high volume of requests. However, shortly after submitting his complaint, the player informed us that he had received his payment and the issue was resolved. We had subsequently marked the complaint as 'resolved' in our system.

The player from Finland had won at the casino but experienced issues when she tried to withdraw her winnings of EUR 450. Despite multiple attempts at contact, the player had received no response from the casino. However, the issue was later resolved and the player confirmed receipt of her winnings. The Complaints Team then marked the complaint as 'resolved' in the system.

The player from Andorra had reported a delay in her withdrawal process from an online casino since the 4th, despite having confirmed her details. She had submitted the necessary identity verification documents, including ID and card photos, as requested by the casino. The casino had been sending repeated confirmation emails, which had raised her suspicions. We had advised the player to wait for an additional 8 days to allow the casino two full weeks to process the payment. The casino had informed her that withdrawals were processed within 3 to 5 business days after account verification. Eventually, the player confirmed that the casino had processed her payment. The issue had been successfully resolved, and the complaint had been closed in our system.

The player from British Columbia had an issue with his winnings being confiscated due to allegedly exceeding the max bet, which he had disputed. Despite the casino's claim, the player had insisted he never bet over one dollar and felt he had been treated unfairly. After a series of exchanges and investigations, the casino had admitted to a misunderstanding and agreed to pay out the maximum allowed winnings from the claimed free spins bonus, totaling 95 CAD. The player had accepted this resolution. The casino had then requested additional documents from the player for verification purposes, which he had provided. After the successful completion of the KYC procedure, the casino had confirmed the payout. The player had confirmed receipt of the payout and expressed his gratitude for the resolution of his complaint.

The player from Brazil had requested a withdrawal prior to submitting this complaint. Unfortunately, his winnings hadn't been received yet. After the complaint was submitted, we advised the player to wait for at least 14 days, as it was usual for withdrawals to take some time due to KYC verification or high volume of withdrawal requests. We extended the timer for resolution by 7 days. The player later confirmed that the issue had been resolved and he had received his winnings. Therefore, we marked the complaint as 'resolved' in our system.

The player from Chile is experiencing issues with account verification, despite submitting the requested documents four times. The casino has since blocked the player's account. The issue has been resolved successfully.

A player from British Columbia has encountered issues with several games not loading after depositing money to access promotional free spins. She has contacted tech support multiple times, but the issues remain unresolved. During the investigation, the casino informed us that they would be closing their operations. As a result, they offered the player a refund which was confirmed received. We closed the complaint as resolved.

The player from Japan has been struggling with withdrawal from the casino. The player's withdrawal request of ¥25000 was accepted but never delivered. The casino requested additional information and deposit in a different system, pushing the player to question the reliability of the casino. The issue has been resolved successfully.

The player from Japan was experiencing difficulties withdrawing his funds due to the limited availability of payment methods. The player has received the payment, and the complaint was closed as "resolved".

The player's self-exclusion failed as she was able to reopen her account. The original self-exclusion was not valid due to a technical issue. The casino refunded the player's deposits for the erroneously activated self-exclusion period and permanently closed her player account. The process took one week from the moment the casino was informed of the problem. The complaint is resolved.

The player from Japan faced issues withdrawing winnings after meeting wagering requirements from free spins. The player had uploaded KYC documents and could only withdraw via bank despite having deposited with StickPay. Due to poor communication, the withdrawal process was delayed. The issue was resolved when the casino confirmed that the player's verification documents had been approved and the payment was successfully processed on August 28th. The player expressed gratitude for the assistance received in resolving the matter.

The player from Finland had made 24 deposits at bCasino and eventually won €200. Despite having a fully verified account, the player was still waiting for the payment, suspecting that bCasino was unwilling to pay. The player reported wagering €1460 with a €10 bonus and faced unresponsive support. The issue was resolved, and the complaint was marked as 'resolved' by us.

The player from Brazil had used various free spins bonuses offered by the casino and was able to increase her winnings to 1,370 BRL. Despite attempting to make a withdrawal of 100 BRL from her balance, her balance was reset to zero the following day. The casino initially voided the player's winnings due to a breach of bonus terms by placing bets higher than allowed. However, after our intervention, the casino reconsidered and agreed to reinstate 500 BRL of the player's winnings, which was the maximum withdrawal cap for the bonus used. The player confirmed receiving the funds after completing the KYC verification process.

The player from Mexico had faced issues with bonus rules and withdrawal of winnings at an online casino. After he attempted a withdrawal, the casino had deducted his bonus balance and denied further withdrawals, citing a violation of bonus rules. The player's attempts to contact the casino's complaint email had been unsuccessful. The casino later explained that the player had exceeded the maximum bet limit, which led to the winnings being voided. However, considering that this breach had been unintentional, the casino offered to reinstate the player's winnings of 1500 MXN and process a payout of 1300 MXN once the player completed the KYC verification process. The player agreed to this, completed the verification process, and confirmed that he had received the payout. The issue was then marked as resolved by the Complaints Team.

The player from Brazil had faced difficulties withdrawing winnings of 304 reais. The casino had repeatedly requested multiple proofs for his account and deposits. The player had been frustrated due to the unavailability of the payout option via Pix, despite the casino accepting payments through it. After an extended back-and-forth with the casino, the player was eventually been able to receive his payout.

The player from Brazil had won R$ 3,380 and had met the rollover requirement. However, despite having transferred the winnings to his bank account four days prior, he had not received the funds. The player had attempted to contact the casino via chat but had received no response. After reviewing the case, we contacted the casino for clarification. The casino initially declined the withdrawal due to irregular play, but after further review, offered to pay the maximum winnings for the bonus the player had claimed (R$ 500). The player accepted this offer, and we marked the complaint as resolved.

The player from Brazil had won 72 reais from free spins and had completed the required rollover. Despite having followed the rules, his withdrawal request for 100 reais was not addressed. The player had previously made deposits at the casino and had a verified account. The player later confirmed that he had received the 100 reais and an additional 412 reais he had requested. We had concluded the case as resolved after the player confirmed receipt of his winnings.

The player from Canada was looking to withdraw winnings of $1,200. The process was delayed for different reasons, from an issue of differing addresses, to blurry ID. We contacted the casino and found out that the player was asked to provide the copy of a credit card which turned out to be a prepaid card, and the player had destroyed it. Nonetheless, the casino approved the withdrawal request later and the player confirmed receiving the money, therefore we closed the complaint as resolved.

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