King Billy Casino Review

The player from Brazil had faced an issue because his withdrawal had been stopped and his login details had been deleted. Upon receiving the complaint, we had requested more information from the player to investigate further. However, the player did not respond to our inquiries within the extended timeframe. As a result, we were unable to proceed with the investigation and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Germany had made a deposit of 70€ via bank transfer which had been debited from his bank account but was not credited on the casino's side. Despite having confirmed the transfer with his bank and having provided necessary documentation, the issue had remained unresolved. The player had made successful deposits with the same bank account in the past. We had advised the player to wait for the conclusion of the bank's investigation, which typically took one month. However, due to the player's lack of response to our messages, we were unable to investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Bulgaria was frustrated as she hadn't received her winnings after several wins. Despite several requests from the Complaints Team for more detailed information, including screenshots, betting history, and communication with the casino, the player failed to provide the necessary details. Due to this lack of cooperation, we had decided to reject the complaint.

The player from New Zealand had placed a $2000 bet on a live roulette game, which was removed due to a 'personal preference limit', despite the table's set limit being $4000. The casino's agent had incorrectly stated a limit of $1500, which led to the casino refusing to pay out any winnings. The player had questioned the casino's high rating and operation. The Complaints Team had determined that they could not compel the casino to pay hypothetical winnings that were not recorded in the game history, especially as the bet amount had been returned to the player's casino balance. As such, the complaint was rejected.

An Italian player had made a €400 deposit to King Billy, which had been deducted from their bank account. However, the casino website didn't reflect the transaction, claiming that it hadn't gone through. The player confirmed that this had been their first deposit and provided a bank statement as proof. We had advised the player to contact their payment provider for investigation and extended the complaint resolution timeline to allow the casino to investigate. However, due to lack of further response from the player, we were compelled to reject the complaint. The issue remained unresolved as the player's funds hadn't been credited to their casino account or refunded.

The player from the Netherlands had requested self-exclusion after suffering significant losses and had expressed a desire to recover his funds. We had attempted to engage with the player to better understand his situation and to clarify why he believed he was entitled to a refund. However, despite extending the response time by seven days, the player did not respond to our queries. Consequently, we had to reject the complaint due to the lack of further information from the player.

The player from Brazil had won over 100 reais after making an initial deposit of 10. However, she was unable to withdraw the winnings and was informed that she needed to deposit to do this. The player made a second deposit of 50, but still could not withdraw the money. Despite our attempts to assist and clarify the situation, the player did not respond to our inquiries. As a result, without sufficient information, we were unable to investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Finland had deposited 200€ into the casino, however, the amount wasn't credited to his account. Upon the player's complaint, we had suggested he contact his bank or payment provider to investigate the issue, as the casino typically had limited control over such situations. We had extended the complaint period, but the player failed to respond. As a result, we were unable to further investigate and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Germany had struggled to withdraw 170€ via PaysafeCard, the same method he had used for depositing money. The only alternative that had been offered was a bank transfer, which required a minimum withdrawal of 300€. The player had been dissatisfied with the support and had claimed it was misleading. The player managed to increase his winnings to 300€ through playing games and was able to withdraw his winnings. This issue had been successfully resolved and the complaint had been closed.

The player from Denmark was struggling with the casino's validation of SOW/SOF due to the nature of his self-employment, which was causing difficulties. As the player was self-employed, his customers were paying partial invoices that the casino was unable to verify, causing issues with the withdrawal of his winnings of 900 euros. The player had provided all necessary documents, invoices, and bank statements, but the casino had stopped responding. We attempted to assist the player by extending the response time and requesting additional information. However, the player failed to respond within the given timeframe, leading us to reject the complaint due to lack of further information.

The player from Brazil had accused the casino of false advertising and withholding her withdrawal of approximately R$1000. She had claimed that she was unable to withdraw her winnings unless she deposited more funds. However, the casino had stated that there was no player with her email address in their database. The player had been requested to provide proof of her casino account but failed to respond. As a result, we were unable to investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Brazil had deposited 30 reais for profile activation and the money had vanished from the account. We had asked for additional information but received no response from the player. The casino had claimed that there was no player with the given email address in their database. Due to the player's lack of response, we couldn't investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The Brazil-based player claimed that the casino requested more money and had not released her withdrawal. However, the casino representative stated that there was no player with the provided email address in their database. The player was asked to provide the complete website link for the casino, but she did not respond. Consequently, we were unable to investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Brazil had submitted a withdrawal request less than two weeks before contacting us. Winnings hadn't been obtained up to that day. Despite our advice for the player to wait for at least 14 days after requesting the withdrawal, the casino had claimed that the player did not make any deposits. Although the casino confirmed the player's account creation, the player did not respond to our further inquiries. Consequently, we couldn't investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Australia has been suddenly unable to access his King Billy Casino account, and they have not replied to his messages. He has an unpaid withdrawal of $510 and an additional $1,800 left in the account. Player’s complaint has been resolved successfully.

The player from Brazil deposited 60 reais and then decided not to play. However, the casino does not allow withdrawing the deposited amount, stating no available balance, even though the player has not yet played. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Germany has requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. The player later informed us that she received her winnings and this complaint was closed as resolved.

The player from Australia suspects irregular play patterns after consistent losses and mentions unhelpful customer service and a faulty VIP system despite high deposits. They request an investigation into their account. The player stopped responding to our questions and comments, so we rejected the complaint.

The player from Germany had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. The payment hadn’t been processed yet. We had advised her to be patient, cooperate fully with the casino, and wait at least 14 days after requesting the withdrawal before submitting a complaint. We extended the timer for her response by 7 days, however, she failed to respond in the given time frame. Therefore, we were unable to investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

A player from Austria deposited money, received a bonus, and won significant funds. After completing the verification process, the casino closed the account due to alleged 'bonus fraud'. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Portugal has had his account canceled and his winnings confiscated by the casino, citing Portugal as a restricted country despite successful previous deposits and withdrawals. The player accumulated the winnings from a free bonus, which was sent to them by the casino in error after the player's country had become restricted. The casino provided evidence to show that the player used a VPN to be able to circumvent the country restriction and use the bonus. Consequently, the complaint was rejected.

The player from Australia requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. The payment hasn't been processed yet. We rejected the complaint because the player stopped responding and participating in the resolution.

The player from Germany reports their experience with the online casino King Billy from Malta. They initially deposited €20, received a welcome bonus, and won €50 from free spins. After meeting the wagering requirements and accumulating around €700 in their account, they attempted to withdraw but faced verification issues and unresponsive customer support for over two weeks. 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 Ireland 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 Greece 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's requesting a refund of his money as he was supposed to be self excluded. The complaint was rejected as the player's issue occurred almost 4 years ago and we can't enforce the casino to refund anything to the player.

The player from Germany is experiencing difficulties withdrawing her winnings due to ongoing verification. We ended up rejecting this complaint as the player decided to play over and lost the disputed amount before we could solve the complaint so this complaint became not relevant anymore.

Due to a maximum win limit on a bonus, the player's winnings were invalidated. After reviewing evidence from the casino, we ultimately dismissed the complaint as the main reason for the confiscation of the balance was the existence of multiple accounts.

The player from Baden-Württemberg 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 Brazil has been accused of opening multiple accounts. The casino provided us with the evidence supporting its claims and decision, and it planned to refund the deposit that the player made in order to withdraw the confiscated winnings. The complaint was rejected because the player did not respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Australia had his winnings sent to someone else’s account. After we recommended the player contact the gaming authority, the player stopped responding, so we ended up rejecting this complaint.

The player from Bulgaria is experiencing difficulties withdrawing their winnings due to ongoing additional verification. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Germany is experiencing difficulties withdrawing their winnings due to ongoing verification. The casino informed us that the player's account was fully verified, but since the player stopped responding, we rejected the case.

The player from Germany is experiencing difficulties withdrawing his winnings due to a minimum withdrawal limit. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Germany was accused of opening multiple accounts. We ended up rejecting the complaint because it was not justified.The casino provided evidence suggesting that the player used incorrect personal information in the registration form to create a second account.

The player from Germany is complaining about the lengthy verification process. 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 Portugual received a bonus which they didn't want automatically. Instead of immediatelly asking the support to cancel the bonus, the player decided to ask for it in the middle of playing. The player decided he is no longer interested in resolving this complaint, therefore we rejected it.

The player from Germany tried to play with a bonus, however games weren’t working. He cancelled the bonus and was asked to wager his deposit. Unfortunately, the player lost all the money before we managed to help.

The player from Germany has been experiencing difficulties withdrawing his funds. Subsequently, all the funds were played and lost regardless of set limits and reality check. After a closer examination, we ended up rejecting this complaint as unjustified.

The player from Czech Republic 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 Czechia was able to deposit an amount of funds exceeding his set deposit limits. The complaint was closed as 'rejected' although the player's concerns were justified. The player was able to deposit beyond the deposit limits because he was depositing in cryptocurrency through CoinsPad payment method.

The player from India has deposited funds without accepting any bonus. When they’ve tried to withdraw their winnings, they were told it won’t be possible without wagering deposit 3x. After a closer examination, we ended up rejecting this complaint as unjustified.

The player from Austria has deposited €700 without accepting any bonus. When he’s tried to withdraw his winnings, he was told it won’t be possible without wagering deposit 3x. After a closer examination, we rejected this complaint as unjustified.

The player has been waiting to receive his withdrawal for 20 days. He also claims that bonus he received does not work.We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Argentina faced issues withdrawing $219 from the casino, as they were required to wager all previous deposits three times, despite having lost them. The player believed they should have been allowed to withdraw their funds after wagering the last deposit. We intervened, and it was determined that a technical error had led to an incorrect calculation of the wagering requirement. The casino corrected the issue, and the player's withdrawal was subsequently approved and processed. The complaint was marked as resolved.

The player from Finland had their account closed on June 11th after depositing 300 euros, which was still processed by the casino. The casino claimed not to have received the payment initially. The player also reported being a problem gambler, but the response the player received didn't satisfy him. The issue was resolved when the casino initiated a refund of the 300 euros back to the player after a delay of 27 days. The Complaints Team noted that while the casino should ideally have acted on self-exclusion requests immediately, they found no fault in the casino’s actions since the refund was processed successfully.