Limitless Casino Review

The player from the United States had deposited $666.85 without a bonus and $870.92 with a bonus coupon at the casino. After losing his funds, he reached out for cashback on both deposits but was informed that the casino didn't offer instant cashback, contrary to a promotion he had received. He sought for the casino to honor the $1,000.27 cashback as promoted. The issue was resolved when the casino issued the requested cashback to the player. However, the player was dissatisfied with the high wagering requirements which led to losing the bonus, and then he closed his account.

The player from California had used a $100 free chip, met all rollover requirements, and had a balance of over $400 which was then reduced to $50. After winning over $6000, the player faced issues when trying to withdraw. Despite providing verification documents and making a deposit, the casino reduced the balance to $50 again. The casino clarified that the winnings were capped due to the max cashout rule associated with the free chip bonus. We concluded that the casino adhered to its terms and conditions, and therefore, the complaint was rejected.

The player from the United States signed up at the casino because of its advertised instant cashback, which the casino later denied providing. Despite having proof and speaking with multiple representatives, including one who acknowledged the error, the player did not receive the cashback. We verified the casino's current promotions and found that only a fortnight cashback was offered, not the instant cashback that had been advertised. Unable to compel the casino to honor outdated promotions, the complaint was rejected.

The player from California had requested a withdrawal prior to submitting this complaint. Unfortunately, his winnings hadn't been received yet. The Complaints Team had advised the player to wait at least 14 days after requesting the withdrawal before submitting a complaint, as it was usual for withdrawals to take some time to process. The team had extended the timer by 7 days for the player to respond, but due to a lack of response, the complaint was rejected. The team was unable to investigate further due to the player's non-cooperation.

The player from the United States was struggling to verify documents which delayed the withdrawal process. The player had provided identification and a selfie with the ID, but had not specified when these documents were submitted. The Complaints Team had extended the response time by 7 days, but the player did not respond within the given timeframe. As a result, we were unable to investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Missouri had submitted documents for withdrawal but was informed they were not clear enough, which resulted in her account being restricted. This had happened despite her having a previous successful withdrawal. The Complaints Team had attempted to gather more information regarding the issue, including the disputed amount and the conditions under which the winnings were accumulated. However, due to the player's lack of response, we were unable to proceed with the investigation. Consequently, the complaint had been rejected.

The player from Washington had deposited $25 via Bitcoin and won $500. He had requested a withdrawal of $400, but the funds were returned to his casino account. The casino had requested account verification, which the player contested as he believed it wasn't required for cryptocurrency withdrawals. Despite our advice to cooperate with the casino for account verification, we had not received further feedback from the player regarding the verification status. Consequently, we had rejected the complaint.

The player from Florida had deposited money to Limitless Casino using Litecoin, but the balance was not updated despite confirmation of the transaction on the blockchain. We had reached out to the player for additional information and extended the response time by 7 days. However, the player did not respond to our queries, hence we were unable to investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from the United States had experienced a delay with the casino's verification process, which had prolonged the timeline for his withdrawal. He had felt that the casino's support was unresponsive and ineffective. After the player had submitted his complaint, we intervened and contacted the casino. The casino had responded that the quality of the documents provided by the player was insufficient for verification. After the player had resubmitted the required documents, his account was successfully verified. He was then able to proceed with his withdrawal. The issue had been resolved to the player's satisfaction.

The player from the United States was unable to withdraw winnings of $970 due to an account issue. After her original email had been hacked, she had been advised by customer service to create a new account. Upon doing so and playing through wagering rules, her winnings were voided due to allegations of multiple accounts. The casino's terms and conditions stated that each player was allowed to have one user account, and if a player had more than one account, all accounts could be closed and winnings voided. Despite the player's situation, these rules prevailed and we were unable to assist further.

The player from the US had experienced a delay in his account verification process at an online casino, which had taken two weeks instead of the stated 3-5 days. After his account had been verified, he had encountered issues with cashing out his winnings. However, the situation had been resolved after his communication with the casino and the player had confirmed that his problem was solved. The complaint was subsequently marked as 'resolved' by us.

The player from Ohio had been waiting for 10 days for account verification to process a withdrawal, but had only received automated responses. After he submitted his documents for verification on January 2, he did not receive any communication from the casino. We had reached out to the player for any updates on the verification but did not receive any response. As a result, we were unable to proceed with the investigation and had to reject the complaint due to lack of response from the player.

The player from New Zealand had accepted 50 free spins and subsequently won $40. However, he had been facing verification delays since December 26th. A $20 deposit he had made was also pending in his casino account. Despite our efforts to resolve the issue, the player did not respond to our messages and questions. As a result, we were unable to investigate further and had no choice but to close the complaint.

The player from Virginia had been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, her payout had not been received yet. After the Complaints Team advised her to be patient and wait for at least 14 days after requesting the withdrawal, she confirmed that she had received her winnings. We then marked the complaint as 'resolved'.

The player from the US had trouble getting verification for a freespin bonus at an online casino. Despite having uploaded all the necessary documents, his account was not approved. The player noted that he had not been informed about any issues with his KYC process. After some time, the player reported that his account had been verified. However, without a final confirmation from the player about the received winnings we had to reject the complaint.

The player from the US had tried to withdraw winnings of $50 earned from a no-deposit free spins bonus. After submitting the necessary verification documents, he had waited for 30 business days without any response, despite their assurance that the process would only take a few days. The player alleged lack of communication from the casino's banking department. The complaint was eventually rejected as the player did not respond to our inquiries and questions, hindering further investigation and resolution of the issue.

The player from Oregon was unable to login to his casino account and sought assistance via live chat but it was unavailable. Despite our efforts to assist him, the player did not respond to our inquiries for further information. Consequently, we were unable to investigate his issue further and were left with no choice but to reject his complaint.

The player from Oregon had trouble withdrawing a $50 bonus from an online casino. The casino required the player to complete a KYC process and deposit before the withdrawal could proceed, but the process was confusing and responses from the casino were unhelpful. Upon investigation, we found that the player's submitted ID photo was of poor quality, which delayed the verification process. We advised the player to upload a new, clear photo to proceed with the verification. However, the player did not respond to our advice within the given timeframe, resulting in the rejection of the complaint.

The player from Arizona was unable to log into some online casinos due to issues with phone number verification. He wished to change the registered number, but the website rejected the new number, stating it already existed. Despite our team's efforts to understand the situation and resolve the issue, the player did not respond to our queries. As a result, we were unable to investigate further, leading to the rejection of the complaint.

The player from Georgia had reported an issue with an online casino, claiming his $300 winnings had been confiscated due to allegations of having multiple accounts. However, the casino couldn't locate any other account under his name. We had attempted to investigate the matter and asked the player for further details. Despite extending the response deadline twice, the player hadn't provided the required information. Consequently, we were unable to proceed with the investigation and had to reject the complaint.

The player from California had had a balance dispute with Limitless Casino due to a misunderstanding about the terms of a sticky bonus. The player had believed he had met the wagering requirements and was eligible to withdraw his winnings. However, the casino had claimed the player still owed the bonus amount. The player had also been unhappy about the casino's refusal to verify his documents and imposition of a withdrawal charge. After our team had explained the terms and conditions of the sticky bonus, the player had managed to increase his balance and make a successful withdrawal. The issue had been resolved to the player's satisfaction.

The player from Ontario had expressed frustration due to a delay in her account verification process despite having submitted the necessary documents 5 days prior. However, the issue had been resolved and her account was verified, which enabled her to make a withdrawal. An additional requirement, which was a $10 deposit. The Complaints Team had marked the issue as 'resolved' following the successful resolution.

The player played with bonus money and after he met wagering requirements, he continued playing other games. When he wanted to withdraw his winnings, the casino told him that he'd played restricted games, even if it was after he'd met the wagering requirements, and that they didn't allow him to withdraw the money. As the casino didn't react to this complaint, it is still unresolved.

A frequent player at Casino Limitless from California, despite having been verified, had encountered issues with identity verification for a recent withdrawal of $50, leading to multiple verification requests. After a series of frustrating interactions with customer support and inquiries into potential links between Limitless and Yabby casinos, the player's account had been frozen. The player had claimed not to own any other accounts and attributed the confusion to his roommate who also played at the casino and sometimes used his device. However, the casino had provided evidence of fraudulent activity, including altered identification documents and linked accounts. After reviewing the evidence, we had concluded that the player had breached the casino's terms and conditions, leading to the account freeze. The complaint had been deemed unjustified as the casino had acted within its terms and conditions.

The player from North Carolina has made several attempts to withdraw her $50.00 from Limitless Casino but keeps getting redirected. Despite following all required steps, including depositing more than the required amount, providing all verification details and contacting several email addresses provided by the casino, she's not received her money.

The player from the United States was facing issues with account access and withdrawal of $100 due to alleged multiple accounts. Despite sending verification documents as requested, there was no update or acknowledgement from the support team, and communication was ceased. Later, after the discussion with the casino, as an exception, its decision was reconsidered, and the casino successfully paid out the disputed winnings to the player's payment method. Basically, once he provided the casino with the requested documents, the payment was processed almost immediately.

The player from Texas had won $211 from a free spins bonus and attempted to withdraw his winnings. After encountering a server error during ID verification, he discovered his account was blocked and inaccessible. We had asked him for further details and extended the response time by 7 days. However, the player did not respond to our queries within the given time frame. As a result, we couldn't conduct a thorough investigation due to lack of information and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Massachusetts had contested a dispute with Limitless Casino. After using a coupon, which restricted games to non-progressive slots, Keno, and Video Poker, the player claimed they had unintentionally violated the casino's Terms and Conditions by playing Black Jack when the game became available. Despite initially approving the withdrawal, the casino had voided the player's $1500 winnings, returning only their $50 deposit due to the violation of terms. After reviewing the case, we had reached out to the casino and they agreed to return the winnings that had been acquired prior to the player starting to play Blackjack, which was restricted by the bonus terms. The total amount of $1,314.38 had been reimbursed to the player's account and was only eligible for withdrawal. The player had confirmed receipt of the funds and requested a payout, marking the resolution of the issue.

The player from Thailand was advised to use VPN due to access issues, which led to a deposit under a USA IP. After winning $1,500, he attempted to update his country for withdrawal but has been denied by the casino. Despite sending required documents, the casino has ceased communication. The casino replied and stated that the player's documents had been found in the casino's spam folder and so had not been seen by the verification team. The documents were reviewed and the player's verification was completed. After some further problems with the player's withdrawal request, the withdrawal was processed and the player received their payment. Consequently, the complaint was closed as 'resolved'.

The player from the United States submitted a withdrawal request two weeks ago with all the required KYC documents attached. Their inquiries to support have only received automated responses. Even though the casino replied and was being helpful the player failed to confirm that he received his winnings.

The player from Sweden had expressed frustration with LimitlessCasino, which had removed extra money from free spins after wagering requirements had been met. Despite our attempts to gather more information and offer assistance, the player did not respond to our messages. As a result, we had no choice but to reject this complaint.

The player from the United States registered with Limitless Casino and after winning, tried to verify their account to withdraw funds. Despite the assurance of verification within five business days, it has now been three weeks with no progress and repetitive responses from the casino. The issue with verification has been resolved successfully.

The player from Oregon is unable to withdraw funds due to account verification issues. Despite submitting documents over a week ago and making a Bitcoin deposit, there has been no response to their inquiries. We closed the complaint because the player stopped responding.

The player from California had issues withdrawing his $130 winnings, acquired from free spins at Limitless Casino. The casino had accused him of claiming too many bonuses and having multiple accounts under the same IP address. Despite the player's claim of making deposits at the casino's sister sites, the casino refused to pay out his winnings. The player had provided his correspondence with the casino. However, the player did not respond to our inquiries. As a result, we could not further investigate and had to reject the complaint.

The player from the United States won over $4,000 but the winnings were confiscated by the casino. The site accused the player of combining comp points with a deposit, which the player denies, arguing that the deposit had no bonus attached. The player further stated that they played the comp points down to zero before the deposit was added to their account. The casino provided sufficient eveidence to support their claims, so the complaint was eventually rejected.

The player from Florida deposited bitcoins and was told that their account would be automatically verified. After losing the deposit, they fulfilled the playthrough requirements on 20 Free Spins. However, now the casino is requesting account verification. Player’s complaint has been resolved successfully.

The player from Washington has been using the casino's site for over a year, with accumulated winnings of around $600. Upon trying to withdraw, the player's account balance was mysteriously reduced by $290. Attempts to ascertain the reason were ignored by customer service. After finally verifying the account, each withdrawal attempt was refused with various reasons, leaving the player with a balance of $50.

The player from the United States won $1,700 on a non-deposit bonus, but when attempting to withdraw the winnings, they disappeared from the account. During the complaint process, it became known that the maximum cashout for the deposit bonus is 50$. Player could not confirm the opposite and has stopped responding.

The player from the United States wagered a bonus and met the requirements. After a sudden logout, he logged back in only to discover his balance was zero. Despite multiple attempts to contact the chat and email support, there has been no resolution or explanation. We closed the complaint as per the player’s explicit request.

The player from Arizona deposited $198 and claimed a bonus, which initially had a maximum cashout of 10 times the deposit. He won $3200, but the balance reduced to $1980 in line with the initial term. The casino altered this term later to limit cashout to 5 times the deposit. They are now willing to pay him $991, applying the new term retroactively.

The player from the US deposited $200 and claimed a bonus. After meeting the playthrough requirements, the player attempted to withdraw $206.85 but faced cancellations due to the amount being 'non-withdrawable'. We closed the complaint because the player stopped responding.

The player from the United States has been trying to get verified by Limitless Casino for nearly two months. They have sent the verification form multiple times, followed the customer support's recommendation to provide additional photos, and sent numerous emails, but have not received any response. The issue has been resolved successfully.

The player from the United States is unable to withdraw funds from Limitless Casino due to a required verification form. Despite multiple attempts to contact customer support through chat and email, no response has been received. We rejected the complaint because the player stopped responding.

The player from North Carolina 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 is experiencing difficulties withdrawing his winnings from a no-deposit bonus. 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 the US deposited in the casino using an address found on the casino website, but her deposit was not credited to her casino balance. We closed the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player's withdrawal disappeared as the casino claims he canceled it. After a closer examination, we ended up rejecting this complaint as there is sufficient evidence from the casino that the player has played over and lost the disputed amount.

The player struggled to withdraw his winnings due ongoing verification. We contacted the casino and received a reply, where they explained that the player needed to make a verification deposit after playing with free spins bonus. The player promised to make one, and later informed us that she successfully received her winnings, so we closed the complaint as resolved.

The player from the US has not received a deposit bonus, because he did not deposit enough funds. We were forced to close this complaint because the player lost the deposit which was supposed to activate it.

The player from the United States has requested a withdrawal a few hours prior to submitting this complaint. Simply, winnings haven’t been received yet. Player’s complaint has been resolved successfully.

The player from the United States had a deposit bonus added to their account automatically. The player made multiple accusations during the resolution procedure. The casino team manage to refute all the accusation sustained with evidence, therefore, the case was rejected.

The player from the United States is experiencing difficulties withdrawing his bonus winnings and placing a new deposit. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player's winnings were voided for breaching the casino terms. After contacting the casino and their explanation, both parties agreed on a satisfactory solution. The player confirmed the complaint was resolved.

The player from the US accumulated winnings with a bonus. The casino informed the player they cannot use this offer multiple times and decided to confiscate all winnings. We rejected this complaint because the player activated two free chips consecutively.

The player from the United States has been accused of opening duplicate accounts. Admittedly, he has opened two different accounts. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Kansas 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 the United States requested a withdrawal two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. Unfortunately, the winnings haven’t been received yet. The casino did not respond to this complaint, so it was closed as 'unresolved'. Following the casino's request to reopen the complaint, we reached out to the player and requested their confirmation of payment receipt. The casino had assured us that the payment had already been processed. Despite receiving no response from the player, we deemed the complaint as resolved, based on the detailed information provided by the casino.

The player from the United States faced issues withdrawing winnings after using a "NO RULES" deposit bonus. Despite having achieved the playthrough requirements, Yabby Casino later voided her winnings, claiming a violation of coupon terms due to playing restricted games. The player expressed frustration over her account balance discrepancies and the lack of communication from the casino. After reviewing the case, the Complaints Team facilitated communication with the casino, which ultimately reinstated the player's winnings, allowing her to successfully withdraw the funds. The issue was then considered resolved.

The player from the United States had requested a $50 withdrawal 6 weeks ago after using a free chip. Despite submitting the required KYC documents, the casino hadn’t processed the withdrawal and had only responded with runaround emails for almost 2 weeks. The player had submitted the necessary documents promptly, but without confirmation from the casino. After the Complaints Team intervened, the player's identity was verified, and the withdrawal was processed successfully. The complaint was marked as resolved.

The player from California tried to withdraw winnings, but the casino claimed they had multiple accounts and locked them out without providing a way to verify. The player shared the household with others who also had accounts but insisted they were not creating multiple accounts. The issue was resolved quickly after the casino verified her account and refunded her winnings.

The player from California had his account closed when he tried to make a withdrawal. The player's winnings of $50 had been accumulated using a free chip. The casino had required verification, which was a new requirement as previous withdrawals had been made without it. The player had sent verification documents, but the casino had closed the account before verification was completed. The casino had cited the reason for closure as 'threats of self-harm' made by the player in emails. The player had apologized for his behavior and expressed a willingness to cooperate. We, the Complaints Team, had requested the casino to clarify the account verification status and reconsider paying the $50 if verification was successful. The casino confirmed that the account would remain closed but agreed to pay the $50 winnings. The player confirmed receipt of the funds, thus resolving the complaint.

The player from Ohio had been blocked from his casino account following a delay in the withdrawal process despite having met the playthrough requirements. Despite multiple attempts, the casino had not responded to his inquiries, wouldn't discuss the issue or return his deposit. The player confirmed that he had previously passed the KYC verification and had been regularly playing and withdrawing funds. He played slots to meet the bonus requirements. After the intervention of the Complaints Team, the casino acknowledged an error on their end, reactivated the player's account, and processed his withdrawal of $621.15. The player confirmed the receipt of his payout, and the complaint was marked as resolved.

The player from the United States had experienced a delay in his account verification process with Yabby Casino, which had lasted for two weeks. He had submitted all the necessary documents, including his ID and a selfie holding his ID. The Complaints Team had intervened by contacting the casino to expedite the process. The casino had responded, confirming that the player's account had been fully verified and his first withdrawal had been processed successfully. The player had confirmed receipt of his payment, and the issue had been marked as resolved.

The player from New York had a problem withdrawing $106.61 from Yabby Casino, the winnings from a $50 deposit. Despite having played through the required playthrough balance, the casino denied the request, stating the player didn't meet the withdrawal requirement. After the Complaints Team explained that the player had used a sticky bonus, which couldn't be withdrawn without sufficient balance according to the casino's terms and conditions, the player understood the situation. The player did not require further assistance, leading us to mark the complaint as resolved.

The player from Colorado had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. The payment hadn't been processed yet. After the player's multiple attempts to communicate with the casino and provide necessary documents, the issue had remained unresolved. However, the player later confirmed that the payout was finally received. We marked the complaint as resolved following the successful payout.

The player from the United States had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks before he submitted this complaint. His money had not been received at that point. The player had been unable to log into his account, even though he had been verified and had withdrawn funds previously. After the Complaints Team had extended the resolution period and suggested that the player contact the casino directly, the player had informed them that the casino had paid him. The delay had been due to the casino's need to verify his identity. The issue had been resolved successfully and the complaint had been marked as 'resolved' by the Complaints Team.

The player from Thailand had faced issues with account verification at an online casino, which had caused a delay in his withdrawal of $103. After he had submitted all required documents for KYC verification, the player was informed by the casino's banking department that the data did not match their account. The player had then forwarded all documents to the Complaints Team. After a thorough review, it had been suggested that the player might need to submit translated versions of his documents. Eventually, the casino had approved the player's account, resolving the issue. The player had expressed satisfaction with the resolution and the complaint had been marked as 'resolved'.

The player from Mexico has been denied his winnings of $1500. Due to the Casino's website being blocked in Mexico, he used a VPN to access and play. The account was closed when the casino noticed the country change and refused to pay out, despite the fact he's a verified customer in their casino group. Since the player used false information in his account, we rejected the complaint. The complaint was reopened at the request of the player. After reviewing the case, the casino decided that they could make an exception for this player as they had been able to match the details at a partner casino. The player then received their payment and the case was resolved.

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

The player from Mississippi is facing issues with cryptocurrency withdrawal. After winning $609 and attempting to withdraw $300, the casino rejected the request, insisting the entire amount needs to be withdrawn. The player has previously been able to withdraw partial amounts and is confused about the sudden change in policy. Player’s complaint has been resolved successfully.

The player from the United States had his account blocked without further explanation. We closed the complaint as resolved after the player's confirmation that their account had been verified and funds successfully withdrawn.

The player from the United States is complaining about the lengthy verification process. A week after submitting the complaint, the player informed us that their account was finally verified and the winnings withdrawn, so we closed the complaint as resolved.

The player from Germany is experiencing difficulties withdrawing their 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 New York has requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. The payment hasn’t been processed yet. The player later confirmed that the withdrawal was processed successfully, therefore we marked this complaint as resolved.

The player from the United States was accused of opening multiple accounts. The casino has informed us that after reviewing the player's issue, all restrictions have been removed from his account. We consider the complaint resolved.

The player from Finland encountered issues withdrawing funds from the casino. They initially faced difficulties due to a misunderstanding regarding the bonus terms, which indicated that winnings from a no deposit free spins bonus were restricted for players from Finland. After investigation, the casino acknowledged the player's entitlement to the winnings since they had claimed the bonus through an email invitation. The issue was resolved when the player's account was verified, and they successfully withdrew their winnings of €50 along with their deposit.

The player from Portugal had deposited €40 into the casino via Skrill, but the casino had not acknowledged the payment or updated his balance. After a period of communication, the casino eventually credited the deposit to his account. The complaint was closed and marked as resolved.

The player from Mexico could not verify his account despite uploading all the required documents over a month earlier. As a result, all withdrawal attempts were rejected, leaving his winnings inaccessible. It was found that the selfie provided was of poor quality, and the player was asked to upload a better one. After multiple attempts, the player uploaded an acceptable selfie, and his account was verified. Subsequently, his withdrawal request was processed successfully, and he received his winnings. The complaint was marked as resolved.

The player from Canada had faced difficulties with his withdrawals at an online casino. After a net win of $2050, his attempts to contact the casino had been ignored, and he had expressed concerns about their customer support and contrasting ratings. We had recommended patience and cooperation with the casino's processes, which can sometimes cause delays. Eventually, the casino had sent the player his winnings, but he remained dissatisfied due to losses he attributed to the casino's inefficiency. The complaint was then marked as resolved.

The player from Brazil had experienced difficulty withdrawing his winnings from an online casino, despite having submitted all necessary verification documents. The casino had promised to resolve the issue within 24 hours, but had failed to do so. The player had made two deposits and used a welcome bonus, and had fulfilled the wagering requirements. Despite this, the casino had continually refused his withdrawal requests. After the player's complaint, the issue had been resolved.

The player from Mississippi was disputing a claim made by the casino that they exceeded the maximum bet amount allowed while playing with a bonus. The player insisted the maximum they bet was 5 dollars and did not believe that they bet 32 dollars as claimed by the casino. The player did not have access to the full game history and aimed to resolve this issue. After reviewing all the provided details from the casino, it was confirmed that the player indeed exceeded the maximum bet, however, it seems it was a one-time and/or unintentional violation. The casino was able and willing to reconsider its original decision and offered the player the reimbursement of the disputed winnings decreased by the sum of the bonus amount since it was not withdrawable, his deposit put into play, and the winnings accumulated from the forbidden bet. The complainant consequently accepted the casino's offer and has already confirmed a successful withdrawal. The complaint is resolved.

The player from the United States was in the middle of a slot game when her phone’s battery died. When she returned to the game, she found out that her winnings were gone. After investigating the issue, we had to wait for a full report from the game provider, but as this takes a lot of time, the casino decided to provide an offer to the player as compensation for the inconvenience, which was accepted by the player. Since both parties were able to reach a consensus and the agreed offer was credited to the player successfully, we consider this complaint to be resolved.

The player from Poland tried to withdraw winnings accumulated with free spins, but the casino accused him of creating multiple accounts. After the player's account had been successfully verified and the winnings reinstated, the player confirmed the case was resolved.

The player from the US had an issue with Casino Extreme after his winnings had been removed due to the casino's claim of multiple registrations from the same IP address. The player had disputed this, stating that he was the only one using his account from his current and previous addresses. After he had provided all the necessary information and evidence, we had contacted the casino to clarify the situation. The casino then requested additional documents from the player, which were provided. After review, the casino had verified the player's account and reimbursed his winnings. The player had also been informed about the industry-standard requirement of a verification deposit for withdrawal of winnings from a no-deposit bonus. The player had made the deposit and was able to redeem his winnings. The player had confirmed the resolution of the issue.

The player from Alberta had his account at Casino Extreme closed due to the casino's allegations of bonus abuse. Although he initially requested the account closure, the player had decided to revisit the casino. Unable to access his old account, he had created a new one and deposited funds. The casino had asked for re-verification, which he completed, but the casino had refused to return his deposit. After a series of communications with our team, the player had resolved the issue on his own. We had expressed our contentment over the successful resolution and reminded him of our constant availability for assistance with any future issues.

The player from Canada had expressed frustration after he had deposited a total of $2050 on three different occasions without any credits to his casino account. He had disputed the casino's claim that they had received the payment but made an error in crediting his account. The player had provided proof and insisted that the casino should have borne the responsibility for any system bug. However, he later informed that the dispute had been settled. We had marked the complaint as resolved and thanked the player for his cooperation.

The player from Arizona experienced promotional issues as Casino Extreme, despite advertising a "fortnightly bonus," hasn't honored it for the month and has not provided clear information regarding the delay. The complaint was resolved as the bonus was credited to the player.

The player from Washington had encountered a deposit error on the casino site where her $35 deposit had been deducted from her card but a JavaScript error occurred. The casino's customer service had not been helpful in resolving the issue. After she contacted her payment provider as suggested by our team, the issue was resolved and the deposit was credited to her casino account. The player had expressed dissatisfaction with the casino's overall service but confirmed that the deposit issue was resolved. We had marked the complaint as resolved in our system.

The player from Quebec reported that after fulfilling the wagering requirements for a bonus, the casino falsely claimed rule violations and confiscated their winnings of $220. The casino initially cited a breach of terms regarding playing restricted games but later decided to reinstate the player's winnings after assessing the situation. The player's net withdrawable balance of $80.89 was credited back to the account, and the player confirmed acceptance of this resolution. The complaint was marked as resolved by the Complaints Team.

The player from Brazil faced a "Player login restricted" message when attempting to access his Brango Casino account, which contained a significant amount of deposited money and winnings. He requested an explanation and access to his account to resolve the issue. The Complaints Team assisted by facilitating communication with the casino, leading to the player successfully completing the account verification process. As a result, access to the casino account was restored, and the complaint was marked as resolved.

The player from Massachusetts encountered issues withdrawing winnings, as the casino claimed a violation of terms for playing a progressive slot, which had not been clearly labeled. Despite following the guidelines, the player’s cashout of $2,558.11 was rejected, and only the initial deposit was returned. The player felt entitled to the winnings due to unclear game classifications. The Complaints Team acknowledged the player's concerns but noted that the casino's terms had been agreed upon during signup. A resolution was reached when the casino offered a $150 chip as compensation, which the player accepted. The complaint was marked as resolved.

The player from Texas had requested a withdrawal prior to submitting their complaint. Unfortunately, their winnings had not been received yet. The issue was resolved after the player received the payment from the casino. The Complaints Team marked the complaint as 'resolved' following confirmation of the payment.

The player from the US had experienced difficulties with a cryptocurrency deposit at an online casino. Despite having paid an extra fee for expedited processing, the deposit had taken 24 hours instead of the promised 2 hours. Moreover, the player had been unable to withdraw their winnings due to their balance being below the casino's minimum withdrawal limit. After the player had communicated their issues, the casino had resolved the problems to the player's satisfaction. The complaint was subsequently marked as 'resolved'.

The player from the United States had completed the play-through requirements but his withdrawal request had been denied by the online casino. The casino had requested documentation for verification, which the player had contested due to his use of cryptocurrency for depositing. However, we had clarified that KYC procedures were still applicable even with cryptocurrency deposits. The player later confirmed that the casino had paid him, resolving the issue.

The player from the United States had deposited the equivalent of $20 in Litecoin at Brango Casino to activate a birthday bonus. However, the casino had claimed that he had deposited $19.99, making him ineligible for the bonus. The player had sought either a refund of his deposit or the activation of the bonus. After he submitted a complaint, the casino had reached out to the player, apologized for the situation, and added the bonus to his account. This resolution had led to the closure of the complaint.

The player from California had submitted a withdrawal request less than two weeks before he contacted us, but hadn't received his winnings yet. After we advised him to be patient, cooperate with the casino, and wait at least 14 days after requesting the withdrawal before submitting a complaint, the player confirmed that his issue had been resolved. We then marked the complaint as 'resolved' in our system.

The player from Indiana had experienced a delay in account verification and a payout of $50, which had been requested on October 26th, 2023. Despite reaching out daily to the casino, he hadn't received any response. We had explained the importance of the KYC process and asked for details about the documents he had provided. The player later confirmed that the casino had paid him, and we marked the issue as resolved.

The player from Texas had met the wagering requirements for their bonus and left a substantial balance. Subsequently, they initiated a withdrawal which was voided by the casino, citing restricted game play as the reason, a violation the player denies having committed.

The player from Ontario had requested a withdrawal but hadn't received his winnings. We had suggested that he waited at least 14 days after requesting the withdrawal before filing a complaint. If his account had been verified, his game history checked, and his withdrawal approved by the casino. The player eventually received the withdrawal, and the complaint had been consequently marked as resolved.

The player from the United States completed many formalities and requirements for account verification, aiming for cryptocurrency withdrawal. However, the casino declined the withdrawal, and the player’s bonus of $156 was found to be non-withdrawable. After increasing the winnings to $400 and attempting withdrawal, the casino voided the winnings, leaving a balance of $29.99.

The player from Canada had encountered issues with the KYC process at an online casino. Despite having submitted the necessary documents for account verification three weeks prior, he hadn't received any confirmation. The situation had escalated when the casino deducted $130 from his account, leaving only $50, and cancelled his $180 withdrawal request citing verification issues. The casino had stated that only $50 could be withdrawn from bonus winnings. After reviewing the casino's bonus terms and conditions, we had confirmed this rule. The player had eventually accepted this explanation, and the complaint had been marked as resolved.

The player from Texas has been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, their payout hasn’t been received yet. the casino responded and explained that the winnings had been confisctaed due to the player depositing before completing the wagering requirements of an active bonus, and playing with 'mixed funds'. Upon further review, the casino decided to make an exception in this case and return the winnings to the player, as no unfair advantage had been gained on this occasion. Consequently, the complaint was closed as 'resolved'.

The Utah player faced difficulties in withdrawing her winnings because according to the casino, she played restricted games with a bonus. Since the restricted games were played after the bonus was wagered, the bonus conditions should no longer have been applicable. Consequently, the casino ultimately decided to pay the player their legitimate winnings.

The player from the United States is experiencing difficulties withdrawing her winnings due to ongoing verification. After the player's account had been successfully verified, the player confirmed receipt of the payment.

The player from the United States has been accused of breaking the T&Cs by playing a restricted game while completing bonus wagering. After contacting the casino and their explanation, both parties agreed on a satisfactory solution. The player confirmed the complaint was resolved.

The player struggled to verify his card as the casino was non responsive. After submitting the complaint, the casino got in touch with the player, his card was verified and the winnings were paid out after a month of waiting.

The player from the US experiences difficulties with his bitcoin deposit in the casino. The player confirmed the deposit was credited to his casino account after the casino was given proof of the transaction.