iNetBet Casino Review

The player from Spain had requested self-exclusion from several casinos. She had claimed that despite providing the necessary documentation, some casinos were delaying the process. However, the player later asked to have the case closed. Consequently, we had rejected the complaint as per her explicit request.

The player from Kentucky had experienced issues with a withdrawal request of 250 dollars via bank wire from the casino. Despite having met the wagering requirements and completed the verification process, the withdrawal had been declined with the casino stating she could only withdraw 50 dollars, leaving a balance of 300 dollars unaccounted for. After the player had provided additional details, we had requested further communication and withdrawal history from her. However, the player did not respond to our follow-up inquiries, leading to the complaint being rejected due to lack of necessary information.

The player from the US had issues with a withdrawal of $1,800. He claimed that after completing the playthrough requirements and submitting a withdrawal request, the casino accused him of wagering on disallowed games. The player disputed this, asserting that he had played only allowed games until his balance was nearly depleted, and only then did he play a restricted game, using less than $1. He believed the casino was unfairly withholding his winnings. Despite our efforts to mediate, the casino maintained their stance and the issue couldn't be resolved. We had closed the complaint as unresolved.

The player from the United States received a bonus and won up to $750 on NEON WHEEL 7s. Extra winnings were taken away, leaving the balance at $40. This relates to a terms clarification given by a casino representative that hints the player’s balance cannot exceed $50. Since the player won using a no-deposit bonus, the win limit is considered industry standard and subsequently, this complaint was closed.

The player from Hawaii had been unable to cash out $50 from the casino, even after verification. After we reviewed the case, we discovered that the casino had requested a verification deposit from the player. However, the player did not respond to our inquiries regarding whether he had made the minimum qualifying deposit as per the casino's instructions. As a result, due to the lack of response from the player, we were unable to proceed with the investigation and had to reject the complaint.

The player complained about the casino denying his winnings due to country restriction. He said that at the time of registration, his country was not restricted but later, the casino changed the terms, and his country became resticted. The casino's position was that the player should have been informed about illegal play of his country.

The player from Portugal had claimed that the casino had altered his withdrawal amount from $50 to $40 without explanation and then blocked his account. After reviewing the casino's policies, we discovered that the casino charged fees for withdrawals, which was disclosed on their website. The player confirmed he received the $40 but argued that the fee should not have applied to his case. We explained that we could not intervene in the casino's decision to charge a fee or close an account. Therefore, the complaint was rejected as the casino had acted within its rights.

The player from the United States has been accused of breaking the T&Cs by playing a restricted game while completing bonus wagering. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Switzerland has been blocked. The casino claims he registered from a restricted country. His winnings were confiscated and the deposits were refunded. The player's country of residence was not included in the casino's list of restricted countries, nor was this restriction enforced by software in any way. The casino reached its decision in this player's case only based on the fact that the player's country of residence is one of the countries where online gambling was illegal. Since the player filled out his player profile correctly and only breached a single condition breach of which could have been easily prevented by action on the casino's end, we believe the player's winnings should be paid in full. The complaint was closed as 'Unresolved' because the casino refused to comply with our ruling.