Justbit Casino Review

The player from Austria had an approved withdrawal, but the casino claimed the USDT address provided was incorrect, which the player disputed. The amount was refunded, and the player sought assistance in withdrawing the funds. The Complaints Team contacted the casino, which confirmed the payout had been successfully transferred. The player did not respond to further messages, but the transaction was verified on the blockchain. The complaint was marked as resolved based on this confirmation.

The player from Russia had complained that the casino had blocked his account and confiscated 75 euros after requiring a KYC procedure despite their policy stating no such procedure for crypto players. He claimed that they had determined his restricted country status from his driver's license and blocked his account. The player had registered his account six months ago using a VPN and had indicated a Russian phone number. He had also raised concerns about the legitimacy of the casino's license. However, we found that the player had violated the casino's terms and conditions by accessing the website from a restricted country using a VPN. Therefore, we could not argue in his favor for the return of his funds and the complaint was rejected.

The player from the Netherlands had reported experiencing continuous payment delays and unprocessed withdrawals at Justbit Casino. His account had been verified and he hadn't used any bonuses. Despite communication barriers with the casino, the player had found a solution by trying an alternative payment method, as suggested by another player. His withdrawal request was then processed and he had received his funds. The issue had been successfully resolved with the casino processing the player's withdrawal request.

The player from the Netherlands, who had accumulated winnings on Justbit, had his withdrawal requests for various amounts unprocessed for 20 days. His account was subsequently blocked due to the creation of another account from the same IP address, and customer service was unresponsive about the situation. After investigating, we found that the player and his friend had used the same IP address and engaged in similar gameplay, violating the casino's terms. Consequently, the complaint was rejected due to multiple account creation and coordinated gameplay, which are against the casino's policies.

The player from the Netherlands had his account cancelled due to having multiple accounts tied to one IP address. He had attributed this to sharing an internet connection with others at home. The player had lost access to his winnings of 1500 euros as well as his deposited funds, and the casino had not responded. The Complaints Team had reached out to the casino for further evidence and analysis. After reviewing the evidence provided by the casino, the Complaints Team concluded that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the player had multiple accounts or a close connection with another account holder, which had violated the casino's terms and conditions. Consequently, the player's complaint had been deemed unjustified and the account closure had been upheld.

The player from the Netherlands had completed bonus requirements and attempted a withdrawal. Following this, the casino blocked the account and denied their winnings. The player had claimed the account was fully verified and they had only played slots. However, the casino had stated that the account was blocked due to a violation of their terms and conditions, specifically the abuse of promotional games and the use of multiple accounts from the same IP address. The casino also noted that the player's account was not fully verified as claimed. After reviewing the evidence provided by the casino, we concluded that the complaint was unjustified as there were reasonable grounds to believe that multiple accounts were being used by one person or that there was a close connection between the owners of these accounts. We had accepted the casino's decision as it had acted in accordance with its terms and conditions.

A player from Norway had encountered an issue after depositing 1,327 LTC into their casino account, which was not reflected even after 24 hours. Despite having contacted the casino support three times, the player had been advised to wait as the transaction was under investigation. We had informed the player that the casino had limited control over such issues and suggested contacting the payment provider for further investigation. We also advised the player against depositing more funds until the issue was resolved. However, due to the lack of response from the player to our messages and questions, we were unable to investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Sweden had requested a refund from the casino due to his inability to place bets. He had expressed dissatisfaction with the customer service response and had raised concerns about the platform's transparency. However, we were unable to investigate further as the player did not respond to our queries. As a result, the complaint had been rejected.

The player from Sweden had sought assistance in withdrawing funds from an online casino. His previous attempts had been unsuccessful due to a reported technical glitch. The casino had advised him to try again. This had been his first withdrawal attempt, and his account had been verified without any active bonus. He then attempted a withdrawal via another method and successfully received his money. We had marked the complaint as resolved following the successful withdrawal.

The player from Sweden had not received his withdrawal despite it having been processed the previous week. We had explained to him that withdrawals could take a few days or even weeks to fully process, potentially due to incomplete KYC verification or a high volume of withdrawal requests. We had advised the player to be patient and wait at least 14 days after requesting their withdrawal before submitting a complaint. However, the player did not respond to our subsequent messages and queries, hence we could not conduct further investigation. As a result, we had to reject the complaint.

The player from the Netherlands had reported a withdrawal delay since December, blaming the casino for not acknowledging receipt of his KYC verification documents. The casino had responded, alleging the player violated their terms and conditions through fraudulent activities and document forgery. The casino's verification partner, Sumsub, had flagged the player for attempting to pass KYC processes under different names on other projects. Despite multiple attempts to get the player's side of the story and request for additional information, the player had remained unresponsive. As a result, the complaint was rejected due to lack of further investigation.

The player from Switzerland had experienced issues with a withdrawal of 600 francs from their casino account. After their bank had rejected the withdrawal, they had faced interface restrictions and unresponsiveness from the casino agent. However, the player confirmed that the issue had been successfully resolved. Consequently, we had marked the complaint as 'resolved' in our system.

Player 'BROSNAHOUSE' made deposit and won. After that he wanted to withdraw his winnings but couldn't, because the casino claimed that they hadn't received the VOLT transfer payment. The bank verified that it was succssfully processed. No information since then.

The player from the United Kingdom is having issues with JustBit. Despite the site allegedly not requiring KYC (Know Your Customer) for crypto players, the casino is delaying a withdrawal of about $450 in Dogecoin. The casino has accused the player of money laundering and is now demanding KYC, which contradicts the anonymity expectation when playing with cryptocurrency. The complaint was rejected as the player stopped responding.

The player from Norway reported that the casino had withheld a significant balance in Bitcoin and Ethereum, alleging violations of rules 59, 22, and 64. The player contested these claims and insisted his activity had been in good faith. After a thorough review of the provided evidence, we found that the player had been using an unfair betting strategy, which is not acceptable and forbidden by most casinos. Therefore, we were unable to support the player's claim, and the complaint was rejected. We advised the player to contact the Gaming Curacao authority for further assistance.

The player from the Netherlands, who held Spanish citizenship, had been playing at the casino for several months and made regular withdrawals. However, the casino blocked her account and refused to refund her winnings due to her Spanish citizenship. Despite our efforts to communicate and clarify the situation, the player did not respond to our messages and inquiries. Consequently, we were unable to further investigate or provide potential solutions to the issue. The case was therefore rejected due to the player's lack of response.

The player from the Netherlands, who suffers from gambling addiction, is seeking a refund from an online casino that is not licensed by the Netherlands Gaming Authority. Despite his location and lack of VPN, he was able to deposit and play. After filing a complaint, the player's account was blocked and their documents were requested for the KSA process. There has been no further correspondence from the casino.

The player from Germany reports that the casino is operating illegally in Germany without a local license. The player also stated that the casino offers bonuses even after the account deletion request, and issues are not addressed promptly. We closed the complaint because the player stopped responding.

A player from Sweden has requested a withdrawal six weeks ago. The casino repeatedly claims that the payment is in order and on its way. However, the player has had to make multiple withdrawal requests, with the funds returning to the gaming account each time. The issue has been resolved successfully.

The player from Germany 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 the Netherlands was previously banned from Justbit casino. Despite this, the casino allowed her to open a new account under a different name. The complaint was rejected because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Denmark has a withdrawal issue at Justbit Casino. After winnings of around €1900, the casino advised him to make a new deposit via an e-wallet for a quicker withdrawal. The player was told the withdrawal could still take up to 3 days, despite promises of faster service. The player later informed us that he received his winnings and the complaint was closed as resolved.

In January 2023, the player from the Netherlands requested the closure of their account and a refund from the casino. The casino agreed but required verification documents such as an ID, which the user provided. However, even after 5 months, the casino is still asking for patience. The case was rejected because the casino team informed us that the player had provided forged documents during the KYC process.

The player from Sweden requests a refund of his deposits due to a failed self-exclusion. After our intervention, we were able to help to resolve the player's issue. The player confirmed the complaint has been resolved successfully.

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

The player from the Netherlands has registered with CRUKS (Dutch Self-Exclusion scheme). However, the casino accepted player’s deposits. After a closer examination, we ended up rejecting this complaint as unjustified.

The player from Albania requested self-exclusion, however, his account has been reopened. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't inform the casino about his gambling problem and didn't cooperate when we tried to help to request self-exclusion properly.

The player's verification failed. The player allegedly filled in a different country in his casino account profile compared to the provided documents, and he had also another account in the casino while he likely played e-sports betting the most. We asked the player to provide us with further details and explanations, but the complaint was rejected because he stopped responding.

The player from Ontario submitted a withdrawal request less than two weeks prior to contacting us. Winnings haven’t been obtained up to this day. The complaint was rejected because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Germany is dissatisfied with the casino’s RTP (Return to Player). Even if we assumed that the issue has been resolved, without a confirmation from the player, we were forced to reject this complaint.

The player from Albania played with a bonus. His winnings have been reduced later. Although the maximum cashout limit wasn't stated in specific bonus terms, it was stated in general bonus terms. This means that the casino capped the player's winnings in compliance with their T&Cs, therefore we were forced to reject this complaint.

The player from Russia is highly dissatisfied with the verification process which requires personal information. 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 Germany 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 Switzerland claims his winnings have not been credited after experiencing a technical glitch. The player later confirmed that the withdrawal was processed successfully, therefore we marked this complaint as resolved.

The player is receiving promotional e-mails from the casino despite being self excluded and multiple attempts to contact the casino to stop sending them. The complaint was resolved as the casino stopped sending promotional e-mails to the player.

The player's winnings from a bet weren't credited due to a technical error. The casino contacted the game provider with the aim of investigating the issue. Not long afterward, the player informed us that the disputed winnings were credited to their account. The case was closed as 'Resolved'.

The player from Japan was dissatisfied with a promotional offer. It was not possible to activate his first deposit bonus free spins due to a technical error, the free spins expired. The casino offered him an alternative solution and later, the player confirmed that he got his free spins. The complaint is resolved.