iWild Casino Review

The player from Poland questioned the casino about a discrepancy in his funds, as he had not withdrawn above the allowed level of 60€, yet 40€ was missing. He believed the casino was cheating customers. The complaint was rejected due to the player's lack of response to the Complaints Team's requests for further information, which prevented any investigation into the issue.

The player from Germany faces issues with withdrawals at Iwildcasino, having their bonus excess deducted multiple times. Initially, after reaching 601.31 EUR, the player could only withdraw 138.75 EUR. Following further play, they accumulated 3282.72 EUR but were again told the amount couldn't be withdrawn due to bonus conditions, reducing their balance to 138.75 EUR again.

The player from Romania had been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, their payout had not been received yet. The Complaints Team intervened after confirming that the player's account was verified and the withdrawal had been approved by the casino. The issue was resolved when the player received their winnings. The complaint was then marked as 'resolved' in the system.

The player from Portugal had won 15,000 euros after using a bonus but had his account automatically blocked. Despite having contacted live chat support and sending over five emails, he received unclear responses and no assistance regarding his winnings. The Complaints Team explained that due to the player and a family member accessing their accounts from the same device, they were unable to assist with the complaint, as it violated the casino's policies. Consequently, the complaint was rejected, and the player was advised to contact the licensing authority if he disagreed with this outcome.

The player from British Columbia faced repeated cancellation of withdrawal requests after going through a lengthy KYC process. Although a small portion of winnings was released, recent withdrawals continued to be canceled without explanation. After multiple cancellations attributed to the Interac payment system's time constraints, the player's issue was resolved when the casino finally processed the payout. The Complaints Team successfully intervened, ensuring the player's winnings were released, and the complaint was marked as resolved.

The player from Italy experienced a delay in the deposit process, as he had been waiting for 12 hours for a bank transfer to reflect in his gaming account. After contacting his bank, he confirmed that the transfer had been completed on their end. The issue was resolved when the funds finally arrived in his account. The Complaints Team marked the complaint as 'resolved' and expressed appreciation for his cooperation.

The player from Germany reported a missing €600 after experiencing issues with a game and the payout process at iwild. Despite winning free spins and receiving two re-triggers, the game stopped, and the player’s account balance decreased unexpectedly. Insufficient responses from support and the VIP manager left the player feeling cheated, as the casino could not provide evidence of the missing funds. The complaint was rejected due to the player's lack of response to the inquiries made by us, which prevented further investigation.

The player from Bulgaria faced ongoing issues with two pending withdrawal requests, which had not been processed for four days despite account verification. We ultimately rejected the complaint due to the player's lack of response, which prevented further investigation.

The player from Germany had won 1000 euros but had not received payment despite requesting it daily. The casino had continuously requested additional pictures without providing any further answers. The Complaints Team had extended the response time for the player to provide necessary information but ultimately had to reject the complaint due to a lack of response.

The player from Australia had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks before submitting this complaint. Their money had not been received yet. The Complaints Team had reviewed the situation and noted that the player’s account was initially blocked, but it was reopened after the complaint was submitted. However, the player had been informed that the deduction of winnings was deemed correct, and the maximum amount allowed was $180. The complaint was ultimately rejected due to the player's lack of response to the team's inquiries.

The player from Poland encountered issues with a withdrawal request, having initially deposited cryptocurrency to unblock payment. Although his account was verified and he had attempted to withdraw 187€, the casino canceled his withdrawal, stating he could only withdraw 30€, which led to confusion about the status of his remaining funds. The complaint was rejected due to the player's lack of response to follow-up questions, preventing further investigation into the matter.

The player from North Rhine-Westphalia struggled with withdrawing money from the casino as he repeatedly received the same email regarding document verification, despite having submitted all necessary documents. We attempted to assist by requesting additional information and extending the response time. However, the player did not respond to the inquiries, resulting in the closure of the complaint.

The player from Australia experienced significant issues with the casino regarding account verification and withdrawal. After completing the wagering requirements for a bonus and winning $180, his account was blocked due to a failed verification through Sumsub, despite successful verifications on other sites with identical documents. He received little assistance and found numerous complaints from others with similar experiences, leading him to believe he had been scammed. The Complaints Team successfully assisted the player in getting his account verified, but after reviewing the game history, it was determined that the player's claim of a browser crash during a bonus round was inaccurate. The records indicated that he switched games and returned later to claim his winnings, which was deemed a violation of the casino's terms regarding delaying rounds. Consequently, the complaint was rejected due to these findings.

The player from Germany had submitted a withdrawal request less than two weeks before contacting us. Winnings had not been obtained up to that day. The Complaints Team had extended the communication period to allow for a response regarding the status of the withdrawal, but the player did not reply to inquiries. As a result, the complaint was unable to be investigated further and was rejected.

The player from Austria faced issues with withdrawing winnings after receiving only €400 per day from a total of €2800. Despite inquiries about the payment process, he received no detailed explanations, and attempts to withdraw via Bitcoin were canceled without reason. The Complaints Team extended the inquiry period to allow the player to respond, but ultimately, the complaint was rejected due to a lack of communication from the player.

The player from Quebec faced issues with multiple withdrawal requests, where two withdrawals of $500 were cancelled due to expiration despite being approved. After submitting additional withdrawal requests, the support team informed her that only one $500 was pending, which may also have been at risk of expiry. She wished to withdraw her remaining balance of $5200 and sought resolution as support was unresponsive. The issue was resolved when the casino confirmed that all requested funds were processed successfully, although the player expressed dissatisfaction with the casino's support and withdrawal process.

The player from Germany had won 5700€ but was only credited 100€ after meeting all bonus conditions. Despite reaching out to support, the issue remained unresolved. The Complaints Team had attempted to assist by requesting additional evidence and extending the response time, but the player did not provide the necessary information. As a result, the complaint was rejected due to lack of response.

The player from Sweden reported being scammed after her account was closed, resulting in the confiscation of nearly 7000 euros. Although her account had been verified, she faced refusal to withdraw her winnings, having seen her funds vanish after a pending request. The Complaints Team investigated the situation, requesting detailed information and the casino's betting history. However, after reviewing the provided gaming history, it was determined that all bets had been calculated correctly, leading to the rejection of the player's complaint.

The player from Austria had his account locked after requesting a payout of 400 Euros three times following a win of 3700 Euros. It had been 10 days without a response from KYC regarding the situation. The Complaints Team found that the casino closed the account due to multiple chargebacks associated with the player's banking history. As chargebacks were viewed as potential fraud by online casinos, the complaint was rejected based on this rationale.

The player from Australia faced issues with a deposit that had not been processed for over 12 hours, despite following all instructions. He sent a slightly higher amount to account for market fluctuations and became uncertain about the trustworthiness of the casino and the financial gateway provider. The complaint could not be investigated further due to the player's lack of response to the team's inquiries, which led to its rejection.

The player from Brazil faced difficulties with withdrawing his winnings from the casino, stating that it was impossible to complete the withdrawal process. The Complaints Team reached out for additional information to assist in the resolution but did not receive a response from the player. As a result, the complaint was rejected due to the lack of communication, preventing further investigation into the issue.

The player from Japan faced issues with KYC verification not being approved despite having submitted a residence certificate and tax payment certificate three weeks prior. Efforts to resolve the matter had been unsuccessful. The Complaints Team engaged with the casino, which ultimately confirmed that the player's withdrawal request was under review. After persistent follow-ups, the player confirmed that a partial withdrawal of 800 euros had been received, and ultimately, the remaining amount was successfully withdrawn. The complaint was marked as resolved.

The player from Austria had won €500 at Iwildcasino but had his withdrawal canceled, resulting in the funds disappearing from both his casino account and bank account. He sought assistance regarding this issue. The Complaints Team had requested evidence from the casino, which provided game logs showing that the funds were returned to the account balance and subsequently used for play until lost. Consequently, the complaint was rejected as the player was unable to provide evidence that the withdrawal had not been canceled.

The player from Sweden had self-excluded from gambling sites on August 22, 2023, but continued to receive promotional emails encouraging her return, which triggered a gambling urge. The Complaints Team had extended the response time several times to allow her to provide necessary documentation and communication with the casino. Since the player stopped responding the complaint thread was closed.

The player from the United Kingdom had successfully completed the KYC process after depositing about 3.5k EUR and winning back a balance of approximately 9k EUR. However, after requesting to speed up withdrawals of 1,200 EUR, the casino had slowed the process and limited withdrawals to 400 EUR per week, despite this being contrary to their stated T&Cs. The Complaints Team had extended the response time for the player to provide necessary information, but due to a lack of response, the complaint was unable to be investigated further and was rejected.

The player from Sweden had requested to close her account multiple times through chat and email, but the casino did not comply. She suspected game manipulation and low RTP, questioning the casino's integrity. The issue was resolved when the casino finally closed her account after her repeated requests. We acknowledged the resolution and appreciated her cooperation.

The player from the United Kingdom had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting the complaint. The payment had not been processed yet. The Complaints Team noted that the player did not respond to inquiries regarding the status of the withdrawal, which led to the inability to investigate further. As a result, the complaint was rejected.

The player from Greece had made a withdrawal of 800 euros from the iWild casino, but the casino closed his account, citing a breach of casino rules. The player did not recall having another account. The Complaints Team was unable to investigate further due to the player's lack of response to inquiries and questions.

The player from Canada had won $3004 after completing the wagering requirements for a deposit bonus. However, the casino had only allowed a payout of 5x the bonus amount ($275), confiscating $2729 of winnings and referencing section 1.4 of their terms. Despite the funds being previously designated as real money, the player's request for a full withdrawal had been denied. The Complaints Team had extended the investigation period but ultimately rejected the complaint due to the player's lack of response to inquiries, which had prevented further investigation.

The player from Denmark faced an error during KYC verification and contacted the casino for assistance. After submitting identity documents, his account was closed with an accusation of fraudulent papers, despite having used the same documents successfully elsewhere. The casino returned the initial deposit, but the player sought help to resolve the issue. The Complaints Team facilitated communication between the player and the casino, ultimately leading to the player's account being reactivated and the opportunity to re-verify his documents. However, the player did not respond within the required timeframe, resulting in the complaint being rejected. Later, the casino confirmed that the documents were valid, and the player was refunded a portion of his balance. Despite this, the player expressed ongoing frustration with the withdrawal process and the handling of his case, ultimately deciding to withdraw a small amount and abandon further attempts with the casino. The complaint was closed at the player's request.

The player from the United Kingdom faced difficulties withdrawing winnings using the same method she used for depositing. She reported a pending withdrawal of £400 via Bitcoin and an uncredited deposit of £50. Despite sending multiple emails to the casino, she received no response. We requested further details and attempts at resolution but received no reply. Consequently, the complaint was rejected due to lack of response.

The player from Austria faced delayed withdrawals, receiving only 400 euros each time instead of the advertised 1,200 euros per day, with each transaction taking 2-3 days to process. She requested expedited payouts in line with the casino's Terms and Conditions. We requested additional details from the player for investigation. The player provided the necessary information, and the issue was successfully resolved. The complaint was then closed as resolved.

The player from Germany had deposited with a bonus and was informed that the maximum cashout was 12,500 euros. After meeting the wagering requirements and winning 3,200 euros, the withdrawal amount was limited to 625 euros due to the bonus terms and conditions. The Complaints Team facilitated communication with the casino, which acknowledged a failure in their automated bonus system but offered limited compensation. Ultimately, the player did not respond to further inquiries, which led to the rejection of the complaint.

A player from Poland had won PLN 5,400 on slots after making a second deposit and had completed the verification process before requesting a withdrawal. Her account was subsequently disabled by the casino administrator without any provided reason. She believed the closure was unjustified and requested her winnings to be returned. After investigating, it was determined that the player had used a delayed round strategy, which was prohibited by the casino's bonus terms. Therefore, the complaint was rejected, and the casino's actions were deemed justified.

A player from Norway had deposited 368 NOK and received a bonus, successfully completing the wagering requirements with a balance of over 5000 NOK. However, the casino reduced the balance to 400 NOK, citing a max win restriction. Despite reaching out to customer support, he did not receive a satisfactory response. We were unable to investigate further and had no choice but to reject the complaint due to the player's lack of response.

The player from Berlin experienced an issue with IWILD CASINO splitting her payout. She had never encountered this before and sought help with the situation. The Complaints Team inquired about her account verification status and the nature of her winnings. The player confirmed her account was verified. Subsequently, the player informed that the issue had been resolved. The complaint was then marked as 'resolved' by the Complaints Team.

The player from Portugal had won 650 euros at Iwild Casino with a bonus and had 124 euros left after the excess bonus amount was deducted. Upon winning 800 euros and attempting another withdrawal, the casino deducted nearly the entire amount again, citing bonus criteria. After the Complaints Team intervened and communicated with the casino, the casino reviewed the game's history and restored 675.6 euros to the player's account. The player chose to cancel his account due to restrictions and limitations but expressed gratitude for the Complaints Team's assistance. The issue was marked as resolved.

The player from British Columbia had received free spins via email with no special terms mentioned. After completing the wagering requirements and attempting to withdraw CAD 150, the casino reduced the winnings to CAD 45 due to undisclosed terms. The casino acknowledged an oversight and agreed to refund CAD 121.85 to the player. The player confirmed receipt of the funds and expressed satisfaction with the resolution. The issue was marked as resolved by us.

The player from Denmark had won 3964 euros at iWild Casino on May 22nd and faced a lengthy verification process. Despite agreeing to a 1200-euro daily withdrawal limit, she had only received 1600 euros in small installments due to unexplained delays and conflicting messages about exceeding withdrawal limits. The casino alleged bank issues, but no clear resolution was provided, and emails went unanswered. The complaint was rejected because the player had gambled away the remaining balance before the casino could address the issue.

The player from Brazil tried to withdraw R$763, but the casino requested another verification after she changed her address. Despite submitting proof for both old and new addresses, the issue remained unresolved. We explained the importance of KYC procedures and requested further details from her. After she provided additional documentation, the verification was completed, and she successfully received her winnings. The complaint was marked as resolved.

The player from Bulgaria had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks before submitting this complaint. The payment hadn't been processed yet. We informed the player about usual withdrawal processing times and advised patience. After multiple attempts to contact the player for further information, no response was received. Consequently, the complaint was rejected due to lack of communication from the player.

The player from Canada faced challenges with the verification process at iWild Casino. The casino denied his 'selfie' holding the ID, which caused a delay in his withdrawal process. He had yet to receive further communication from the casino. We requested the player to provide the selfies and relevant communication with the casino, but he failed to respond. Consequently, the complaint was rejected due to lack of response.

The player from Italy had provided the requisite documents for bank verification but hadn't received any response yet. Their total pending withdrawal, which amounted to €1000, was still awaiting processing. We informed the player that the verification process could take up to 14 days and requested additional information. The player did not respond to follow-up messages, leading us to reject the complaint due to lack of communication.

The player from Germany had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. Her money hadn't been received yet. After she submitted the complaint, the casino quickly verified her account and processed the withdrawal. The player confirmed that she had received her winnings only after lodging her complaint with the Casino Guru. The issue had been resolved successfully, and we marked the complaint as 'resolved' in our system.

The player from Poland had wagered and won a significant amount in the casino but was only allowed to withdraw a limited sum. The player had questioned the casino's practice, citing a lack of clear communication regarding withdrawal rules and accusing the casino of unfairness. The player also stated that customer service had ignored the issue and demanded to recover the difference of around 4,030 PLN. After our intervention, the casino had reconsidered their decision and restored the disputed amount to the player's account. The casino had confirmed the player's right to request a withdrawal and the player was successfully credited with 4,030 zł and had already completed a withdrawal. However, due to lack of confirmation from the player about the resolution, we had to close the complaint as rejected.

The player from Germany won 11,400 euros at iWild casino, but his subsequent withdrawal was delayed. He checked with the casino to confirm if he could withdraw the entire amount, and they agreed. However, after he continued playing and increased his winnings, his account was temporarily blocked, and the winnings were canceled due to an alleged breach of bonus terms. We contacted the casino, and after reviewing the player's game history, the casino decided to restore 10,814 euros to his account. The player was advised to withdraw the funds, but later reported delays in the withdrawal process. The complaint was ultimately rejected due to a lack of response from the player.

The player from Germany had purchased a bonus coin at iWild Casino DE and had faced an issue with deductions of balance. After meeting the wagering requirements, his balance had been converted to 'Real Money', which he had further increased. However, the casino had deducted the amount twice, once after wagering and again when he had requested a withdrawal. We had asked the player for evidence of these deductions and had forwarded the case to the casino for review. The casino decided to restore the deducted amount of €125 to the player's account, thus resolving the issue. The player had confirmed the restoration of his balance.

The player from Germany had faced alleged neglect from iWild Casino regarding responsible gambling practices. Despite stating a maximum loss limit of €2,000 per month and making several requests to block his account due to excessive spending, the casino and his assigned VIP manager had failed to take action in a timely manner. The player had consequently faced severe financial losses amounting to approximately €40,000 over three months. The Complaints Team, after an extensive review of the provided evidence and communication with the casino, concluded that the player had not explicitly informed the casino about his gambling problem. The player's complaint was therefore rejected.

The player from the United States, who also resided in Germany, struggled to withdraw funds from an online casino despite previously successful KYC verification including a video interview. The casino requested additional KYC information, which the player perceived as cheating. We communicated with both parties and found that the casino was within its rights to request additional documents as per their terms and conditions. The player was advised to comply with the casino's request in order for the withdrawal process to proceed. However, the player insisted that the documents had already been provided a year ago. Without the player's further cooperation, we were unable to assist and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Greece had deposited 20€, but the payment hadn't been reflected in the casino account. Despite attempts to resolve the issue through communication with the casino, the problem persisted. Our team had advised the player to contact the payment provider and refrain from making further deposits until the issue was resolved. After a delay, the casino confirmed that the deposit had been credited to the player's account. Although the player expressed dissatisfaction with the delay, the issue was resolved.

The player from Germany had won €2000 at iWild Casino. Despite having a verified account and having received an initial payout of €400, the player had reported not receiving the remaining amount. He had attempted to reach out to the casino's customer service via Live Chat and email but had received no explanation regarding the delay in payments. After communication with the Complaints Team, the player had decided to wait for the pending payments. Eventually, the player confirmed that he had received all the pending payments. The issue was then marked as 'resolved' by the Complaints Team.

The player from Greece had issues with a withdrawal. After wagering a no deposit bonus of 159 euros, the player had won 405 euros in roulette and had expected a payout of 1200 euros, but the casino informed him that he could only withdraw 795 euros. The player claimed that the casino intentionally delayed his withdrawals, which led him to lose all his winnings. After reviewing the case, we found that the player had already played his winnings and hence, there was limited recourse available. Although the player was dissatisfied, he acknowledged our efforts to help. Consequently, we had to reject the complaint as unjustified.

The player from the US had expressed concern about the change in game volatility at iWild Casino, which consistently showed as 1 out of 3 for every game after a maintenance update. The player felt this had lessened his win amounts and made winning more challenging. We explained that without concrete evidence of unfair practices, we could not take action. Despite extending the response deadline by 7 days, the player did not provide additional information or respond to our queries. Consequently, we had to reject the case due to insufficient evidence.

The player from Austria had not received a payout of 400 euros from iWild Casino. He had claimed the withdrawal was repeatedly delayed until he lost all the funds by continuing to gamble. The player had waited for 2-3 days for the withdrawal to be processed, despite repeated queries. We had determined that a withdrawal could take up to 14 days and the casino was not accountable if the player decided to gamble away the balance during this period. As the player had lost the balance, we concluded the issue was no longer relevant and thus, the complaint was rejected.

The player from Austria, who had deposited and lost over 1500 Euros, was labelled a gambling addict without explanation and lost access to her account. She had communicated her issue to the Complaints Team, stating that she was unable to access her account and had not received any response to her emails. The Complaints Team had clarified that casinos had the right to restrict or close accounts if they suspected irregular play or other questionable activities. As no funds had been withheld by the casino, the Complaints Team concluded that they could not assist further and the complaint was rejected.

The player from British Columbia had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting the complaint. The payment hadn't been processed at that time. After the Complaints Team advised the player to wait for at least 14 days and cooperate fully with the casino, the player confirmed that she had received her withdrawal. Following this, we marked the complaint as 'resolved'.

The player from Nova Scotia had winnings of 932.94 CAD awaiting withdrawal. Despite having submitted all requested verification documents, the player's account hadn't been verified yet to allow the withdrawal. The player failed to respond to our inquiries for additional information, thus preventing us from further investigating the issue. As a result, we had to reject the complaint.

The player from Alberta had conducted verification to withdraw winnings, which was not approved due to the inability to provide a screenshot of specific banking details. They had $3200 in winnings they were unable to withdraw. The player had provided screenshots of their online banking profile and statement. The Complaints Team had contacted the casino, which confirmed that the verification process was ongoing and they would liaise with their financial department to find an alternative solution for the requested screenshot. The Complaints Team had requested additional information from the player, but the player did not respond, leading to the rejection of the complaint.

The player from Germany had contested iwildcasino's 50x turnover requirement for bonuses and the subsequent limit placed on achievable winnings. He had asserted that much of his significant win was reduced due to the stipulation that only a maximum of 5x the deposited bonus could be received. We had reviewed the casino's bonus policy and found that the terms did indeed limit winnings from bonus wagering to 5 times the bonus granted. We had informed the player about this and asked for additional supporting information for his complaint. However, the player did not respond within the given time frame, leading us to reject the complaint due to lack of further information.

The player from Germany had experienced a delay in their withdrawal request which had been pending for over a month. The Complaints Team had advised the player that withdrawal delays could have been due to incomplete KYC verification or high volumes of withdrawal requests. The casino had confirmed that the player's verification process was ongoing and had requested specific documentation from the player to complete this process. However, the player had failed to respond to the team's messages and provide the necessary documents, therefore the complaint was rejected. The team had emphasized the importance of the KYC process in ensuring that the money was sent to the rightful owner. The player could have reopened the complaint at any time if he had decided to cooperate.

The player from Sweden had been waiting for approval of three withdrawal requests made on 26/1 and 27/1 despite being fully verified. He had previously made successful withdrawals and completed the KYC process. The player had expressed concerns about not receiving chat logs to his email. We had advised the player to wait an additional five days to allow the casino two full weeks to process the payment. We extended the timer by seven days for the player's response, but the player did not respond within the given time frame. Therefore, we had to reject the complaint due to a lack of further information from the player.

The player from Bulgaria had faced difficulties withdrawing 1,200 euros from an online casino as it did not recognize her Revolut account. The casino had requested a bank screenshot for verification, but she couldn't provide it due to security concerns. After six days of sending documents, the player had managed to pass the verification process. Consequently, we had marked the complaint as 'resolved' in our system.

The player from Japan had his account deactivated after a security check had indicated a violation of rules. The casino had accused him of using strategies while playing with an active bonus, an act that was deemed as bonus abuse, and as such, all the player's winnings had been nullified. The player had claimed that he did not breach any rules and was merely utilizing the welcome offer. We had contacted the casino for clarification and they had decided to reinstate the sum of 790€ to the player's account balance. However, the player had faced difficulties accessing his account. The casino had confirmed that the player's account was reopened and the funds had been credited. The player had then been required to complete a KYC-verification before withdrawals could be processed. The player had confirmed that he was able to access his account and had completed the verification process. He then applied for a withdrawal and confirmed receipt of the funds. The issue was successfully resolved.

The player from Germany had deposited a total of 45€, won, and had raised his balance to 267€. When he tried to withdraw his winnings, his account was suddenly closed, citing a violation of playing with an active bonus rule. The casino had confiscated all his winnings and permanently closed his account. After the player's complaint, the casino had conducted a thorough review of the game history and decided to reinstate the sum of 267€ to the player's account balance, affirming the player's entitlement to request a withdrawal. The player confirmed that the money had been successfully transferred to his bank account, resolving the issue.

The player from Ireland had requested a daily deposit limit of €50 at the online casino, but it had not been implemented, which led to her making accumulative deposits of €800. She was seeking a refund. Despite her repeated attempts to contact the casino, she had not received any response. The casino continued to send her promotional offers, even after she had closed her account due to a gambling addiction. The player claimed she had no confirmation or response from the casino and alleged they were ignoring her emails and requests for chat logs. In the absence of proof from the player regarding her request for a deposit limit, we could not proceed with the case.

The player from Greece had initially struggled with the account verification process at an online casino due to an incorrect document confirming his location. Despite multiple attempts to send it, he had been blocked and hadn't received a response from the casino's support department. However, the issue had eventually been resolved with the casino verifying his account. The complaint had subsequently been marked as 'resolved' by our team.

The player from Germany had an issue with a casino where, after fulfilling bonus conditions and winning €1200, the casino had deducted €1050, stating only €150 was payable from the bonus. The player had disagreed as the winnings were after the bonus conditions had been fulfilled, and the casino hadn't responded to his emails for days. The Complaints Team had contacted the casino for clarification. The casino had responded stating that the player's winnings were manually deducted due to the bonus being a non-standard deposit bonus, which could not be automatically deducted. Despite the player's dissatisfaction, the Complaints Team had concluded that the casino had acted according to their established rules, thus rejecting the complaint.

The player from Greece had trouble making a withdrawal of 250 euros from iWild Casino. Despite having verified their account and provided proof of ownership for both their old and new bank cards, the casino had not yet processed their withdrawal. After communicating with the casino and providing the necessary documents, the player confirmed that the withdrawal had been verified and the money had been received. The issue had been successfully resolved and the complaint had been closed in our system.

The player from the UK was unable to withdraw her winnings from iWild Casino because her usual bank option was not available. Despite creating Ecopayz and Mifinity accounts as suggested by the casino, she could not make deposits due to restrictions, which left her unable to withdraw her winnings. She had reached out to the casino multiple times via email and live chats, but received insufficient responses and no resolution. The Complaints Team had suggested exploring the option of opening a Bitcoin account, but the player declined and decided to spend her winnings instead. As such, we were unable to assist further and the complaint was closed.

A player from Croatia registered on iWild Casino via Casino.Guru and used a no-deposit bonus promo code from the site but did not receive the bonus. Contact with customer support was unsuccessful, and they claimed the player used an invalid registration link. After gathering information from the player we concluded we can't ask the casino to credit the the bonus to the player and the complaint was rejected.

The player from Cyprus had faced difficulty withdrawing €1000 from iwildcasino.com, despite having successfully completed all KYC requirements. They claimed that the casino was requesting endless documents and had refused to support withdrawal to a Lithuanian bank while accepting deposits from it. However, the player did not respond to our inquiries, leading us to reject the complaint due to lack of further information.

The player from Norway faced obstacles when attempting to withdraw winnings of 1350 euros. Despite having a verified account, the casino asked for further documentation and later announced that the account was closed, and winnings were confiscated. The complaint was closed as the player stopped responding.

A player from Greece deposited 50 euros into the casino without using any bonus and his balance reached 4000 euros. However, he's been experiencing withdrawal delays, having received only 400 euros in the past 2 days with 3,600 remaining. He suspects that the casino slows down the process intentionally. The complaint was rejected as the player stopped responding.

The player from Germany had scored significant winnings at iWildCasino, increasing his balance to 2400€. However, the casino had limited him to withdraw only 5 times the bonus amount which was 750€, deleting the rest from his account and citing a clause from their terms. The player's account had been verified, and the bonus money had been converted into real money credit. We had contacted the casino about the player's additional winnings and asked for clarification. After our intervention, the casino had agreed to credit the player's winnings back to his account. The player confirmed that he had received the funds and the issue had been successfully resolved.

The player from Sweden had been blocked from Iwilds due to alleged gambling misuse, but continued to receive promotional emails. She had reported this issue and was seeking compensation for losses amounting to SEK 11,000, which she attributed to these promotional emails. The player had also reported Snatchcasino.com. We had asked the player for additional information and evidence to support her claims, but she 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 Sweden cannot provide the requested screenshot of ezeewallet for withdrawal, as their ezeewallet account is closed and can't be opened. The complaint was closed as the player stopped responding.

The player from Ontario had reported a delay in the withdrawal process, despite having submitted all necessary verification documents. After the casino had completed the verification process, the player's withdrawal request was cancelled due to the finance department's delay. The player had to resubmit the withdrawal request. The player later confirmed that he had received his withdrawal funds. The issue had been marked as resolved by the complaints team.

The player from Brazil had reported an issue with the withdrawal of R$3000 from iWild Casino. After multiple inquiries with customer service, the player's account had been unexpectedly deactivated without any explanation or payout. The player had confirmed that the account was verified and the winnings were accumulated from both a bonus and a real money deposit. Despite the account being blocked, the deposited amount had not been refunded. We had contacted iWild Casino for further clarification. Upon reviewing the evidence provided by the casino, it was concluded that the player had breached the casino's terms and conditions, indicating possible bonus abuse and multiple accounts. Therefore, the complaint had been closed as unjustified, accepting the casino's decision to block the player's account and withhold the withdrawal.

The player from Canada received a bonus of $25.00 when she deposited $50.00 into her online casino account. She won and tried to withdraw $1500.00, but the casino's financial department deducted $1375.00, leaving only $125.00 available. The casino cited the initial bonus as the reason for this deduction, which led the player to question the fairness of the bonus system. The player also stated that she hadn't received the $125.00 as it was credited back to her casino account and had been played away. We discovered that the casino's terms and conditions limited the maximum cashout amount to 5 times the bonus granted. The player had not responded to our requests for further information, so we were unable to investigate further.

The player from Brazil is facing a withdrawal delay. The player requested a withdrawal which hasn't been processed 24 hours later. According to the player, the casino support justifies the delay stating it's under analysis. The complaint was closed as the player stopped responding.

The player from Germany had been unable to change his existing bank account details to a new one at the casino, which had been preventing him from making any withdrawal. Despite multiple attempts to reach the casino through chat and support queries, he hadn't received any assistance. After reviewing the case, we had contacted the casino for clarification. However, the player later indicated that the issue might have been resolved, but without a clear confirmation, we had to reject the complaint.

The player from Bulgaria, who had self-identified a gambling addiction, had requested account closure and fund recovery. The player had complained about the lack of response from the casino regarding her refund request for deposits made before her self-exclusion. She had also expressed dissatisfaction with the casino's continued promotional emails despite her account being closed. We had clarified that refunds for deposits made prior to self-exclusion could not be facilitated. However, we had offered to contact the casino to request removal from their email promotion list. The complaint was eventually rejected as the player's deposits had been made before her self-exclusion request, hence, no refund could be processed.

A player from the United Kingdom is experiencing a lack of communication from the iWild casino. Despite having their account closed as requested, their other concerns are not being addressed and their attempts to use online chat have been unsuccessful. The complaint was closed as the player resolved the issue with the casino.

The player from Alberta deposited $1000 into an online casino and received a $1300 bonus. She was not informed about a stipulation that required a $3000 expenditure before withdrawal. The player is seeking a refund and has not received assistance from customer support. The complaint was resolved as the player received his funds.

The player from Greece had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. His money hadn't been received yet. The player claimed that the casino was refusing to pay, despite him providing proof of ownership for his old card. However, the player failed to respond to our request for further information and evidence. Therefore, we were unable to investigate the issue further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Sweden had submitted a withdrawal request less than two weeks before contacting us. Winnings hadn't been obtained up to that day. The player had expressed frustration over the casino's request for additional documents. However, the casino eventually approved all the documents and the player was informed of a 3-5 working day processing time for the withdrawal. We had extended the complaint resolution timeframe by 7 days, but the player did not respond within this period. As a result, we were unable to investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Italy had faced withdrawal issues with an online casino after winning a significant amount. The casino had asserted that the maximum withdrawal from the bonus balance was capped at €1,185, which overrode the player's total winnings of €10,600. The player's previous withdrawals had been cancelled, and their balance had been reset to €1,185. The player had argued that the casino had capped his winnings twice, once after meeting the bonus wagering requirements and again after it was converted to real money. The casino had initially defended their actions based on their bonus withdrawal rules. However, after discussions with the Complaints Team, the casino had agreed to return €9,425 to the player's balance, which was immediately available for withdrawal. The player had accepted this solution, marking the issue as resolved.

The player from Canada was unable to get verified to make a withdrawal on iWild Casino. Despite repeated attempts via phone, email, and text, the player has received no response from customer support. We contacted the casino and it informed about sending the email to the player twice, asking for re-uploading some documents. When we asked the player to check this, they stopped responding to our messages therefore we were forced to reject the complaint.

The player from Germany 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 Bulgaria has requested a withdrawal prior to submitting this complaint. Unfortunately, their winnings haven’t been received yet. The complaint was closed as resolved after the player confirmed that the casino had initiated the processing of withdrawal requests.

The player from Austria cannot access his casino account and seeks to reclaim all deposits minus the paid winnings, since the casino is not licensed in Austria. Since we do not deal with licensing issues, we rejected the complaint.

The player from India made three withdrawal requests of 400 Euro each, from the Iwild casino. While one request was successful, the remaining two withdrawals are still not credited to his MuchBetter wallet. The casino joined the discussion with the player and later it was confirmed that his winnings were paid out.

A player from Spain has been awaiting a €200 withdrawal for three weeks. The player is also experiencing issues accessing the casino website. Although it seems as though this issue has been resolved, the complaint was rejected because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Germany 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 deposited in the casino, but the amount wasn't credited to his casino account, due to the tranasction being rejected. We closed the complaint because the player didn't reply to our messages and questions.

The player from Austria is facing issues with payout and verification. Despite being verified, their withdrawals have not been processed for 5 days. The casino requested unnecessary documents and has been unresponsive, leading the player to suspect deliberate delays. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Germany 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.

The player from Latvia 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 from Switzerland is experiencing difficulties withdrawing funds because the transactions to his preferred payment methods are not available. The complaint was rejected because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Austria requested self-exclusion due to gambling addiction, however, he was able to reopen his account soon after. The player didn't provide proof that he requested self-exclusion, therefore we were forced to reject this complaint.

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

The player from Germany couldn’t log in to his account for some time. Afterwards his balance disappeared. After a closer examination, we ended up rejecting this complaint as there is sufficient evidence the player has lost their balance fairly and used rude abusive language towards our staff which is unacceptable.

The player from the United Kingdom had an active self-exclusion in a sister casino due to a gambling problem. She believes that she should have been prevented from depositing funds into iWildcasino. After a closer examination, we ended up rejecting this complaint as unjustified.

The player's winnings were voided and account was closed for unfair gameplay. The casino explained that the player was accused of card counting. In accordance with our Fair Gambling Codex, we find card counting to be acceptable as long as players do not use software assistance or collude with other players. After some discussion, the casino decided to pay the player's winnings on this occasion and the complaint was resolved.

The player from Cyprus had his account blocked during his account verification. While waiting for verification to complete, the player played down his winnings, therefore we rejected his complaint as unjustified.

The player from Austria is experiencing difficulties withdrawing his winnings due to ongoing verification. Although it seems as though this issue has been resolved, the complaint was rejected because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Brazil 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 Italy is experiencing difficulties withdrawing his 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 Brandenburg has 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 Italy had their winnings capped without further explanation. After thorough investigation and customer friendly approach of the casino's representatives, the player received their winnings in full and the complaint was resolved.

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

The player from Poland is experiencing difficulties withdrawing his winnings due to ongoing verification. The player canceled his withdrawal and closed the casino account, therefore we rejected the complaint.

The player from Sweden has requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. The payment hasn’t been processed yet. After a closer examination, we ended up rejecting this complaint as the disputed amount was from a No deposit bonus that had a maximum winnings cap and the casino was right in this case. The player has been paid all the other eligible winnings.

The player from Finland was struggling to verify her account. She later noticed that the remaining winnings disappeared from her account. The casino stated that the player did indeed have an active withdrawal, but that further documents were required for verification. After some time, the casino stated that all of the documents had been reviewed and that the player would shortly receive their payment. The player confirmed receipt of the payment and the matter was resolved.

The player from Australia was not able to request a withdrawal due to the limited payment methods offer. In a relatively short time after inviting the casino to the thread, the player was offered an alternative payment method and the disputed funds were successfully paid out. The complaint is resolved.

The player from Italy 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 Luxembourg 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 Belarus is experiencing difficulties accessing their account due to an alleged self-exclusion. After contacting support to clarify the situation, the player was informed that their account had been blocked and winnings confiscated due to the use of unfair advantages. The player admitted that they had been card counting, and the casino responded to confirm this was the reason for the account closure. We do not believe that card counting is a sufficient reason for the confiscation of winnings, as per our fair gambling codex. The casino did not want to change its position regarding this case, so the complaint was closed as 'unresolved'. After a short time, the casino requested that the complaint be reopened, and stated that upon further consideration of the case they had decided to pay the player their winnings on this occasion, although the account would remain closed thereafter. The player confirmed receipt of their payment and the issue was resolved.

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

The player from the Czech Republic is experiencing difficulties withdrawing his winnings due to ongoing verification. The complaint was rejected because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Germany is experiencing difficulties withdrawing his funds due to limited availability of payment methods. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

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 iWildcasino. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Germany is dissatisfied with the verification process. He provided all the required documents 2 weeks ago, but his account still hasn’t been verified. The player managed to pass the verification and later confirmed he received his winnings. Therefore we marked this complaint as resolved.

The player from Denmark has an active self-exclusion in a sister casino. He believes that he shouldn’t have been allowed to open a new account with iWildcasino. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Austria provided all the required documents last week. He has been waiting since for his account to be verified. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Germany faced repeated rejections of his withdrawal due to an unspecified technical error. Despite reaching out for clarification, the player received no response, expressing frustration with the casino's poor customer support. The issue was resolved when the player successfully withdrew using a different bank account. We marked the complaint as 'resolved' in our system and appreciated the player's cooperation.

The player from Italy had won €1250 at Snatch Casino and had requested to withdraw the funds through three separate transactions, which had been pending for 10 days. Despite verifying the account and submitting the necessary KYC documentation, he had not received a response, and customer service had not resolved the issue. After escalating the complaint, communication with the casino had led to the processing of the first withdrawal, and ultimately, all withdrawals were successfully completed. The issue was marked as resolved, and the player confirmed receipt of his winnings in full.

The player from Ireland had won €28,250 at Snatch Casino but faced delays in processing his withdrawals. Over three months, he had 23 withdrawals processed, with 7 cancellations for no stated reason, and still had 3 more pending. He believed the casino was slow-paying in hopes he would spend his winnings and requested mediation for the remaining balance. The Complaints Team facilitated communication between the player and the casino, resulting in the player receiving approximately seven €500 withdrawals since the intervention. The complaint was then closed as resolved, with the player advised to reach out if further issues arose.

The player from Germany had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks before submitting this complaint. Their money had not been received yet. The issue was resolved when part of the winnings was received by the player, confirming that the withdrawal process had been completed. The complaint was subsequently marked as 'resolved' in the system.

The player from Germany expressed frustration over slow withdrawals from the casino, as he had only received three payments of 500€ each over two weeks, while their terms and conditions stated that withdrawals should occur within two working days. The player requested adherence to the stated terms for a more secure experience. The issue was resolved after we intervened, leading the casino to process a withdrawal of 1500€ promptly, which improved the withdrawal speed. The player confirmed satisfaction with the outcome and considered the case closed.

The player from Brazil had a verified account but faced issues with the casino requesting a bank statement showing her address, which she did not receive by mail. Despite providing a statement via the bank's app and explaining this to the KYC department, they continued to demand the document. The Complaints Team intervened, facilitating communication with the casino, which ultimately verified her account and approved her withdrawal. The issue was resolved, and she confirmed receipt of her funds.

The player from Poland faced a delayed withdrawal at Snatchcasino. The issue was resolved by the player directly with the casino. The complaint was marked as 'resolved' in our system after the player confirmed the resolution.

The player from Finland deposited money into the casino, but the balance did not update. After waiting for five hours, live help assured it would be resolved within ten minutes, but the issue persists.

The player from Germany had deposited money into the casino, activated a bonus after losing their real money, and met the bonus requirements before hitting a 1500 Euro jackpot. After requesting a withdrawal, the casino paid out only 500 Euro and denied the remaining 1000 Euro, without providing a clear explanation. We contacted the casino, which then reviewed the case and decided to refund the remaining 1000 Euro to the player. The player confirmed receiving the full amount, and the complaint was marked as resolved.

The player from Portugal had a verified account and was attempting to withdraw €620. Despite sending the requested documents multiple times over 15 days, the casino still hadn't processed the payment. The player faced issues with the casino requesting unnecessary details for a bank account, which had already been used for a previous successful withdrawal. After intervention and follow-up by our team, the player confirmed receipt of his money. The complaint was marked as resolved.