Lucky Legends Casino Review

The player from the United States had requested withdrawals of $2,500 on August 9th and $1,200 on August 10th, but it had been a month without resolution. Despite having successfully redeemed winnings before, communication from the casino had ceased over the last three weeks. The Complaints Team had attempted to assist by requesting further information and extending the response time, but the player did not reply. Consequently, the case was rejected due to lack of communication, with the player being informed that the complaint could be reopened in the future.

The player from the United States encountered issues withdrawing funds due to difficulties in sending an identification picture, despite having completed the verification process. He was instructed to contact customer support, which did not resolve the situation. The Complaints Team extended the response time by 7 days but was unable to investigate further due to the player's lack of response, resulting in the rejection of the complaint.

The player from Louisiana had submitted a withdrawal request less than two weeks before contacting us. Winnings had not been obtained up to that day. We had confirmed with the casino that the application in question was fake and no longer available for download. As the issue was related to an unofficial application, the complaint was closed. Players were advised to exercise caution and conduct research before registering at online casinos.

The player from Tennessee repeatedly attempted the verification process for withdrawals but encountered a persistent error (9835) after submitting a selfie. Despite confirming that everything was good, he could not complete the process and received no response from customer support. The issue was resolved by the Complaints Team, which clarified that the app and website were treated as separate entities, and therefore, the complaint could not be processed further. Consequently, the complaint was rejected as the casino did not have an official website for review.

The player from Alabama had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks before submitting the complaint. The payment had not been processed yet. The Complaints Team had extended the investigation period but ultimately had to reject the complaint due to the player's lack of response to inquiries. It was noted that the issue involved a fake casino, which had hindered further investigation.

The player from Colorado had been attempting to withdraw funds for three months but faced issues completing the KYC process. Despite submitting her driver's license and a bank statement, the casino was unable to verify her identity. The player had provided some documentation, but the bank statement was not accepted, and communication with customer service had been unresponsive. The complaint was ultimately rejected due to the player's lack of response to the Complaints Team's inquiries, which prevented further investigation.

The player from Finland successfully accumulated winnings of 600€ after using a 200% bonus but faced issues with withdrawal due to complications over identification documents. Despite submitting the required documents multiple times and confirming his address, the casino continued to request additional information, including a confusing number for international bank transfers, which caused ongoing frustration. The Complaints Team extended the investigation period but ultimately had to reject the complaint due to the player's lack of response to requests for further information.

The player from the United States faced difficulties withdrawing $1,800 from the casino, as he had repeatedly sent clear photos of his driver's license without receiving a response from the designated email address. He was uncertain about the final amount due to bonus deductions. The issue was resolved when the casino confirmed that the player's documents were complete, and the first payment was queued for approval. The player successfully received his funds after adjusting his withdrawal requests to Bitcoin, totaling $1,421.43. The complaint was marked as 'resolved' by the Complaints Team.

The player from North Carolina 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 found that the player was using a different email for their gaming credentials, which led to confusion with the casino’s representatives. It was determined that the casino in question might not have been the one the player intended to use, and due to this, the complaint was rejected. The player was advised to choose casinos with verified credentials in the future.

The player from California has been waiting for a withdrawal since 7/2/24, with the status continuously showing "in review." Despite multiple messages and emails for assistance, she only receives automated replies with no human response.

The player from the United States had been waiting for a withdrawal for one month and faced issues after initially requesting a Bitcoin withdrawal, which was rejected. After resubmitting a bank wire transfer request, the transfer was marked as "sent to payment provider" over two weeks prior, leading the player to question the lengthy process. The casino confirmed that the payment had been sent to a third-party provider on July 30, but there were known delays affecting the disbursal. The payment was ultimately received by the player on September 3, and the complaint was marked as resolved by the Complaints Team.

The player from Iowa faced issues with withdrawing money from the casino. After initially starting a withdrawal on July 22, 2024, and providing the necessary documentation, he learned that the preferred withdrawal methods were no longer available and he could not proceed due to his bank's limitations. Despite opening a new bank account to facilitate a wire transfer, the player was repeatedly informed that his account lacked sufficient transaction history to process the withdrawal. Ultimately, he decided to abandon his pursuit of the winnings, expressing dissatisfaction with the casino's practices. The Complaints Team classified the case as 'unresolved' due to the casino's inadequate procedures and decreased its safety index.

The player from Pennsylvania had successfully won $382.03 but was informed that the winnings were invalid due to mixing funds from a free birthday chip. After canceling the withdrawal based on conflicting information, the player aimed to have their winnings credited back to their account, believing that the casino was not following its own terms and conditions. We reviewed the situation, but based on the evidence from the casino indicating that the player had a cash balance when activating the birthday bonus, the complaint was ultimately rejected.

The player from California had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks before submitting this complaint. Their money had not been received yet. The issue was not resolved as the player failed to respond to the Complaints Team's inquiries regarding account verification and casino details. Consequently, the complaint was rejected due to insufficient information for further investigation.

The player from Tennessee had requested a withdrawal prior to submitting their complaint. Unfortunately, their winnings had not been received yet. The Complaints Team had clarified that they could not assist with complaints regarding casinos that did not have an official website, which was the case with the Lucky Legends Casino app. Therefore, the complaint was rejected due to the inability to proceed without an official casino platform for verification.

The player from Oklahoma had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting their complaint. Their money had not been received yet. The Complaints Team was unable to assist with the issue as the casino did not have an official website for verification purposes. Consequently, the complaint was rejected.

The player from the United States had requested a withdrawal 6 weeks ago and had not received her winnings. The casino stated there was an issue but had not fixed it or responded to messages. The Complaints Team had attempted to gather more information but received no response from the player. As a result, the complaint was rejected due to lack of communication.

The player from New Mexico successfully made a first bitcoin withdrawal but encountered issues with a second withdrawal request. The casino required a wire transfer instead of bitcoin and initially rejected the player's provided bank details, citing insufficient account activity. The player then requested a paper check but had not received a response. The Complaints Team intervened, facilitating communication between the player and the casino, which ultimately led to the player receiving her payout after 19 business days. The complaint was marked as resolved.

The player from the United States had been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, their payout had not been received yet. The Complaints Team investigated the situation and determined that the player had been engaging with a fake version of Lucky Legends Casino. It was advised that the player delete the fraudulent app and refrain from depositing further funds, as the money sent to the fake casino was likely lost. Consequently, the complaint could not be resolved since it pertained to a non-legitimate operation.

The player from the United States stated that the casino was trying to confiscate her winnings by falsely claiming issues with her bank account information. Despite having opened a new account with only her name, the casino rejected it, stating the need for an alternative account. The player believed the casino was scamming her, as multiple withdrawal methods had been unreasonably denied since May 2024. The issue was rejected by the Complaints Team due to the player's lack of response to requests for clarification and further information.

The player from New York had been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, her payout had not been received yet. The Complaints Team intervened after further investigation revealed that the player had been misled and was dealing with a fraudulent casino posing as Lucky Legends Casino. The player was advised to share the fraudulent website's information to help prevent others from being scammed. Ongoing assistance was offered to ensure her concerns were addressed.

The player from the United States had requested withdrawals totaling $8,750 via wire transfer on May 21, but they remained pending after a month. Despite promises from a VIP host and the escalation of the issue to management, the withdrawals had not been approved. Approved BTC withdrawals were also unpaid. The issue was resolved after the player confirmed receipt of all pending payments, including a final withdrawal of $1,250, which led to the closure of the complaint.

The player from Arizona was unable to complete the KYC verification process at the casino, receiving a message that they had attempted verification too many times. They were then stuck and unable to redeem their funds. We requested additional information and communication details from the player to assist further. However, the player did not respond to our messages and questions. Therefore, the complaint was rejected due to lack of response from the player.

The player from the United Kingdom, who was currently in the USA, had not received winnings from two separate wins and had received no response to emails. The Complaints Team investigated the issue and found that the casino in question, Lucky Legends, was not affiliated with the app the player provided. Consequently, the complaint was rejected.

The player from Germany had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks before submitting this complaint. Their money hadn’t been received yet. After multiple follow-ups, the casino processed the withdrawal, and the player received $913 out of the requested $937. The complaint was marked as resolved by us after the player confirmed the receipt of the funds.

The player from Texas submitted a $500 cashout on 6/20/24, which remained under review. She reported that the casino had informed her the refund would be processed in 3-7 business days via PayPal, but she had not received the money despite the status showing "redemption successful." The complaint was rejected by us because the platform in question was an application or social casino, which is not part of our database.

The player from the US had requested a $300 withdrawal on May 31, 2024, and it remained pending after a month. Despite having contacted the casino multiple times through the app, he had not received a response. The Complaints Team had attempted to assist by communicating with the casino and requesting additional information, but the case was ultimately rejected due to the player's lack of response to inquiries necessary for the investigation.

The player from Indiana requested a $500 withdrawal on June 10th, 2024. Despite repeated attempts to contact customer service, the request remained "waiting for review" after three weeks without any response. We attempted to gather more information from the player to investigate the issue but received no response. Consequently, the complaint was rejected due to lack of communication.

The player from the US won $100 on a bonus, but the withdrawal took weeks to get approved and remained unpaid despite promises to expedite it. We requested additional information and documentation from the player to proceed with the investigation. However, due to a lack of response from the player, the complaint was rejected.

The player from the United States could no longer access the Lucky Legends app due to regional restrictions, despite having a balance and playing for months. We asked the player for additional information to proceed with the investigation. However, the player did not respond to our messages. Consequently, the complaint was rejected due to lack of response.

The player from Louisiana had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting her complaint. The payment had not been processed yet. She experienced issues with verification and received a refund but was still waiting for another withdrawal of $100. Ultimately, she decided to delete the app due to frustration over the inability to redeem her winnings. The complaint was rejected at her request, and the case was now closed.

The player from the United States had faced withdrawal issues for three months. The casino had initially denied the withdrawal to his First National Bank account, and then to a Wells Fargo account due to its age and inactivity. Alternative methods like Bitcoin have also been refused. The Complaints Team had attempted to mediate the situation, but the player did not provide the necessary documentation or respond to requests for clarification, which led to the rejection of the complaint.

The player from the United States was unable to withdraw her winnings due to exceeding verification attempts. She requested that her account be unlocked to proceed with the withdrawal. We attempted to assist by contacting the casino, but the player did not respond to follow-up inquiries. Consequently, the complaint was rejected due to the lack of response from the player.

The player from Oklahoma faced delays with her withdrawal, which had been pending for two weeks. She stated that she had contacted customer service multiple times without receiving a satisfactory response. She confirmed that this was her first withdrawal attempt, she had successfully passed KYC verification and she had not used any bonuses. The issue was resolved after we intervened, and the player confirmed receiving her deposit the next day.

The player from the United States was unable to withdraw $1400 due to issues with the address verification process at Lucky Legends. The casino had rejected her proof of residency documents, including a printed statement from her electric company and her recent tax return. Attempts to contact the casino’s KYC team had been unsuccessful. The issue was resolved after the casino reset the KYC verification process and accepted her proof of residency, allowing her to receive her winnings within 24 hours.

The player from the US faced extensive delays and multiple verification requests while trying to withdraw $500 in winnings from Lucky Legends Casino. Despite complying with all requirements and verifying his account, the casino had yet to provide the funds, citing additional delays and a lack of transaction evidence. We requested further details and extended the response time by 7 days. However, due to the player's lack of response, the complaint was rejected.

The player from the United States had requested a withdrawal over a month ago, but it still had not been processed. We reached out to the casino, which could not locate her account using the provided email and suspected a phishing scam. Despite attempts to gather more information, the player stopped responding. The case was closed due to lack of cooperation from the player.

The player from South Africa had been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, their payout hadn't been received yet. We requested the player to provide more details and communication with the casino, but she failed to respond. Therefore, the complaint was rejected due to lack of necessary information and cooperation.

The player from Indiana had won a jackpot of $5,801.88 and requested a withdrawal of $2,500 to his Bitcoin wallet on LuckyLegends.com. Following the confirmation of the request, the site went offline, and he had been unable to log back in since. We had advised the player to wait for the withdrawal process, but he eventually managed to log back in and decided to cancel the withdrawal to continue playing. The complaint was marked as resolved after the player confirmed the issue was settled.

The player from Arizona had requested a withdrawal that was accepted on May 8th and approved on May 18th. Despite surpassing the 7 to 10 days processing window, the player still had not received the funds and felt given the runaround. We contacted the casino to inquire about the status of the player's withdrawal. The issue was resolved successfully as the player confirmed receiving the payment.

The player from Connecticut was unable to withdraw $30 from the casino despite having passed the verification process. The casino, which had promised payouts within 7 days, ignored all his messages and eventually blocked his access to the account. We were unable to proceed with the complaint because the casino operated solely through an app and lacked an official website, preventing us from adding it to our database.

The player from the US had been attempting to withdraw his winnings for two weeks. Despite approaching three customer support agents, he had received no concrete solutions or contact about his issue, exceeding the 7-10 business day verification period. The Complaints Team contacted the casino, which confirmed that the payment had now been sent via Bitcoin. The player confirmed receipt of his funds, and the complaint was marked as resolved.

The player from Ohio faced issues with withdrawing money, as the casino's KYC process wouldn't accept any proof of address documents, including tax papers, bank statements, and government letters. We requested additional information and documents from the player but received no response. Consequently, the complaint was rejected due to the lack of communication from the player.

The player from Minnesota had been waiting for his $2000 Bitcoin withdrawal to be processed since April 6. The withdrawal was approved on April 19, but he had been ignored by customer service since then and hadn't received the money. The delay was due to the casino requesting an updated ID, which the player provided. The casino confirmed that the payment was released on June 3 and the player acknowledged receipt. The complaint was marked as resolved.

The player from the United States had issues with a withdrawal request made on 5/1/24. It took the casino 15 days to approve it, and even after 23 days, he still hadn't received the payout. Moreover, his access was revoked after a $30 deposit. We reviewed the case and found sufficient evidence of the creation of multiple accounts linked to the player's account. Consequently, the complaint was closed as unjustified, and the casino's actions were deemed compliant with their terms and conditions.

The player from Rhode Island experienced issues with withdrawal fees. She won $246.45 and expected to receive $100 back, but was informed she would have to pay an $83 fee to retrieve an additional $96. The returned funds were marked as "under review" and the player believed the process should be instant. The complaint was rejected by us due to the player's lack of response to our inquiries, which prevented further investigation.

The player from Puerto Rico had been trying to withdraw her winnings since December 2023. Even though she had submitted the necessary documents multiple times, the payout was constantly denied. The withdrawal was finally granted on April 17, but a month later, she still hadn't received the funds. The player hadn't made a withdrawal from this casino before, and the winnings were accrued from a free bonus after deposit. Following our team's intervention and dialogue with the casino, the player confirmed that she had received her withdrawal. Consequently, we marked the complaint as 'resolved'.

The player from Pennsylvania faced delays in withdrawal. His deposit into the casino was immediate; however, the casino stated it would take a month for the withdrawal to be processed. We requested additional information from the player to proceed with the investigation. The player did not respond to our messages and questions, leading to the rejection of the complaint due to lack of communication.

The player from the United States struggled with withdrawing her winnings of over $500 from Lucky Legends Casino. After reducing the withdrawal amount, she still encountered difficulties and resubmitted her details multiple times. Eventually, she played away her winnings. The complaint was ultimately rejected due to the player's failure to provide the necessary documents and lack of response to follow-up inquiries.

The player from Colorado had been trying to withdraw her winnings worth $832 for over two months. The casino had deducted a disputed charge from her winnings and was then demanding a wire account, which the player didn't have. The casino continued to delay the payment despite having accepted the bitcoin address. The Complaints Team had attempted to investigate the issue, asking for further information and extending the response deadline. However, the player failed to respond, leaving the team unable to further investigate. As a result, the complaint was rejected.

The player from the US had requested a $249 withdrawal over a month ago, which was marked as 'approved' but had not been processed. Despite contacting casino support multiple times, no progress was made. We reached out to the casino, which acknowledged the issue and promised to investigate. However, the player stopped responding to our messages, preventing further investigation. Consequently, the complaint was closed due to the lack of player cooperation.

The player from the US had requested a withdrawal of $207 two weeks ago, but the casino had refused to pay, stating that the maximum withdrawal was $110, a condition not indicated in their terms and conditions. We had attempted to assist the player by seeking further details about his withdrawal attempt, the casino's communication, and the nature of his winnings. However, due to the player's lack of response to our inquiries, we were unable to proceed with the investigation or offer potential solutions. The complaint was consequently rejected, but the option to reopen it remained available to the player.

The player from the US had won $7,000 and requested a withdrawal. Despite having provided the requested information, the casino had asked for a PDF of a bank statement. The player suspected that they would not pay, leaving him without a method to collect his winnings. The Complaints Team intervened, but the casino required additional documentation for verification, specifically a utility bill in the player's name, which had not been provided. After several exchanges and no resolution, the player expressed frustration, and ultimately the complaint was rejected due to a lack of cooperation in providing the necessary documents.

The player from Arizona had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting the complaint. The payment hadn't been processed at that point. We had advised the player to be patient and to cooperate fully with the casino, as it was common for withdrawals to take a few days or weeks to process. We had reached out to the player to confirm if the withdrawal had been received and to gather more information, but the player did not respond to our messages. As a result, we were unable to further investigate and the complaint was rejected.

The player from Germany claimed that the casino had unfairly flagged his verification documents as fake or expired. He demanded an immediate return of his deposit. The issue was resolved when the player accepted a compromise of $100 as compensation for the delays experienced during the withdrawal process. The casino confirmed that the funds were available for withdrawal once the player established a valid payment method. After some back and forth regarding the payment method, the player successfully received the funds, leading to the complaint being marked as resolved.

The player from Canada wanted to make a withdrawal, but the casino transferred the request to verification, which remained pending for 2 weeks. The player tried to change payment cards but received no response despite providing all required documents. The casino requested additional documents, including a utility bill and a bank statement, which the player claimed to have submitted. Despite this, the casino stated the necessary documentation was still missing. The player reported further complications with the bank wire process. The complaint was ultimately rejected due to the player's lack of response to further inquiries.

The player from Oklahoma had submitted a withdrawal request less than two weeks prior to contacting us. Winnings hadn't been obtained up to that day. We had advised the player that withdrawals could take a couple of days or even weeks to process, and suggested that the delay might have been due to unfinished KYC verification or a high volume of withdrawal requests. After extending the timer for response by 7 days, the player failed to respond. As a result, we were unable to investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Wisconsin had attempted to redeem $200 from her online casino account, but the money had disappeared during the process, which led to her dissatisfaction. Upon receiving her complaint, we requested additional details to help resolve the issue. The player didn't respond when asked for necessary complementary information. Consequently, we could not investigate the matter further, and the complaint was rejected.

The player from the US had requested a withdrawal of $400 over two weeks prior. The process was taking much longer than anticipated, despite the player having fulfilled all requirements and receiving KYC approval. The player had used a bonus to accumulate the winnings and had complied with all the casino's requirements, including making a deposit before the withdrawal request. The casino had raised concerns about multiple accounts from the same household, which the player clarified involved her son who no longer lived at the same address. The player had provided all necessary information and documents, but the casino had yet to process the withdrawal. Despite our efforts to assist, the complaint had to be rejected due to lack of response from the player to our follow-up questions.

The player from the US had encountered a withdrawal delay at an online casino. Despite having submitted his information multiple times, the casino had continually requested resubmission, causing the withdrawal to stay pending. The player had confirmed that he had won using a bonus and met the playthrough requirement. However, due to the player's lack of response to further inquiries, we had to reject the case. Without the necessary information, we were unable to proceed with an investigation or provide potential solutions.

The player from the United States had been trying to withdraw his winnings for two weeks but the process was delayed. The player had not made any successful withdrawals before and had already verified his account. He was waiting for a withdrawal of $317.14. The casino initially approved the withdrawal but later stated that the player's Bitcoin wallet did not match their records. The player disputed this claim, stating that he had used the same address from the start. Eventually, the casino explained that the maximum withdrawal from the free welcome chip was $100, plus a refundable account confirmation deposit of $10. The player confirmed receipt of this amount and the issue was resolved.

The player from Louisiana had been waiting for one month for a withdrawal request to be processed. The only response he got was that it would take more time, without any clear explanation or timeline. The player had expressed frustration over the delay and lack of communication, stating that he had won a significant amount and expected his withdrawal to be honored. Despite attempts by the complaints team to gather more information and extend the timer for his response, the player did not provide the requested details. As a result, we were unable to further investigate his complaint and it was rejected.

The player from the US had submitted a withdrawal request via Bitcoin eight days ago and had complied with all terms and conditions. Despite being verified, the payout had not been approved, breaching the stated 5-business day payout period on the casino's site. After communication between the player, the casino, and our team, the issue was escalated by the casino. The player had confirmed the receipt of the first half of her withdrawal. Following additional communication, the casino had confirmed the processing of the second half of the withdrawal. The player had confirmed the receipt of the second half, resolving the issue.

The player from Hawaii had been unable to withdraw his winnings from an online casino, despite having completed the casino's requirements and receiving an approved payout date. He had used Bitcoin for the transactions, but the promised payout times had been exceeded without him receiving any money. The player had previously attempted a withdrawal on free spins, but was denied due to consecutive bonuses after being asked to deposit. In his recent claim, he had deposited $50 in Litecoin and ended with winnings around $550, but the casino deducted $200, leaving him with $350. The player confirmed he had passed the KYC and verified his address. Despite our attempts to assist, the player did not respond to our inquiries, which led us to reject the complaint due to lack of further information.

The player from the United States had experienced problems with the withdrawal process at an online casino. Despite having verified her account and submitted a withdrawal request, she was informed that the process would exceed the initially stated 5-day period. The player sought the return of her initial $100 deposit or the payout of her winnings. The Complaints Team had advised her to wait at least 14 days after requesting the withdrawal before lodging a complaint, as delays could be due to unfinished KYC verification or a high volume of withdrawal requests. However, due to the player's lack of response to further inquiries, the complaint could not be investigated further and was subsequently rejected.

The player from Illinois had experienced a withdrawal delay at Lucky Legends casino. Despite having previously won and successfully withdrawn a jackpot, she had difficulties cashing out a recent win of $500, even though she had fulfilled all the terms and conditions. She had been using the same Bitcoin address for withdrawal as before and had been in constant contact with the casino's support team. However, she reported delays and unresponsiveness from the casino's side. The casino later reported that the withdrawal was fully paid. However, the player stopped responding to our inquiries, forcing us to reject the case due to lack of cooperation. The resolution remained unclear due to the player's unresponsiveness.

The player, who was located in the United States, had his casino account closed without any provided reason after he won $2000. Despite having reached out multiple times via email, he had only received automated responses and had sought an explanation. The casino had stated that there were serious issues with account verification. The player had insisted that he had submitted all the required documents and had made successful withdrawals in the past. After the documents were reviewed, the casino found that the expiration date on the player's driver's license had been tampered with. The player did not respond to this claim within the given timeframe, which led to the rejection of the complaint.

The player from Denmark had experienced communication issues with the casino which had stopped replying to emails and blocked chat functionality. Despite approval, a payout to his Coinbase account was delayed. The casino had responded stating that they no longer serviced players from Denmark, hence the account closure, but confirmed that full payment had been made via Bitcoin. The player had been asked to confirm receipt of payment but failed to respond. As a result, we had to reject the case due to lack of cooperation from the player.

The player from Mississippi had her winnings, which totaled $886.50, disappeared without any notification or explanation. Despite having submitted verification details and made a necessary crypto deposit, no money had appeared in her account or crypto wallet. The player had communicated with the casino and our complaints team extensively, providing screenshots and emails as evidence. Upon investigation, it was discovered that she had violated the casino's terms and conditions by operating multiple accounts. Consequently, the casino had deemed her ineligible for withdrawal, and we had to reject the complaint as unjustified.

The player from Washington had attempted to make a withdrawal after fulfilling wagering requirements but was asked for an additional deposit for wallet verification and identity check. Her withdrawal requests had been immediately cancelled and the casino had asked for banking details despite her not using them for withdrawal. The required deposit for "verification" had not been returned either. After the intervention of the complaints team, the casino had reviewed the situation and approved the withdrawal. The player had confirmed receiving her cashout, however, she had expressed dissatisfaction with the casino's service. The issue had been marked as 'resolved' by the complaints team.

The player from Texas had initiated a withdrawal that was approved more than 10 business days prior, but the funds had not arrived. The player had reached out to the casino's support for assistance but had not received a response. After the player filed a complaint, the casino had proceeded with the payment. The issue had been successfully resolved with the player confirming receipt of their winnings. We had marked the complaint as 'resolved' in our system.

A player from Vermont had requested a withdrawal of $1500 from Lucky Legends Casino. Despite having a verified account and having submitted all necessary documents, her withdrawal had remained pending and she had received no response from the casino. The player then faced an issue with her account being blocked by the casino. The casino had claimed the player had made threats and refused to provide necessary documentation, which led to the closure of her account and confiscation of her winnings. However, the player had denied these allegations and claimed she had not received any refund of her deposits. Despite the player's willingness to cooperate and provide further documentation, the casino had maintained their stance. We had attempted to mediate but ultimately had to close the complaint as 'unresolved' due to lack of sufficient response from the casino.

The player from California had been waiting for a withdrawal approval since January 29. The withdrawal got approved on February 29, but he hadn't received the funds by March 11. The player's account had been verified and he had used a no rules bonus. After the complaint was forwarded to the casino, they confirmed that the payment had been issued and delivered via Bitcoin. The player acknowledged the receipt of his funds, albeit with a fee. The issue was then marked as 'resolved' by our team.

The player from New York had been unable to provide a required utility bill for verification as no bills were under her name, which had resulted in the blocking of her $100 withdrawal. The casino had continued to send her promotional messages without closing her account. We had learned that the casino had not received any withdrawal requests from the player and there were no playable funds in her account. The casino had also identified multiple accounts under the same physical address, which was against their terms and conditions. Despite our efforts to mediate, the player had not responded to our final inquiries, leading to the rejection of the complaint.

The player from the US had completed the KYC verification process and initiated a withdrawal request. However, the casino had not processed the withdrawal within the specified 7-10 business days. The player was forced to switch withdrawal methods from wire transfer to Bitcoin due to his bank's policies. After several delays and assurances from the casino, his withdrawal was finally approved, but the payment was still pending. We had attempted to assist the player and extended the timeline of the complaint, but due to the player's lack of response, we were forced to reject the complaint. The player could reopen the complaint if he wished to resume communication.

The player from the United States had issues with the withdrawal process due to a lost card. Despite successfully going through the verification process with another card and contacting customer service, he had not been able to withdraw his funds. We had explained the importance of the KYC process and asked for further communication between him and the casino for investigation. However, the player did not respond to our messages and questions within the extended time frame. Consequently, we were unable to investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Ohio was struggling with a withdrawal request due to multiple verification needs. This had been the fourth time he attempted to finalize his withdrawal, but kept facing demands for additional verification. We reached out to him for further details about the ongoing verification process, the status of his documents, and his last communication with the casino. However, due to his lack of response, we were unable to investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from South Africa had deposited $30 at Lucky Legend Casino, expecting to receive a $200 free bonus. However, he was unable to claim the bonus as the casino claimed he had already used it previously. The player had requested either the bonus or a return of his deposit. We had explained that casinos reserved the right to restrict or withdraw bonuses at any time, often without notice. The player had compared the situation to a store not honoring a discount coupon, but we clarified that casinos often distributed promo codes in bulk, sometimes through third parties, without verifying player eligibility. Regrettably, we couldn't resolve the player's issue and had to reject his complaint.

The player from Oregon had been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, her payout hadn't been received yet. Despite the casino's claim of processing the payment via Bitcoin, the player had not confirmed receipt of the funds. The Complaints Team had attempted to facilitate communication between the player and the casino, however, due to the lack of response from the player, the complaint was eventually rejected. The player had the option to reopen the complaint in the future.

The player from South Carolina had been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, his payout hadn’t been received at that point. He had expressed frustration with the delay, expecting the process to be faster. However, after four days, he confirmed that his withdrawal had been successfully paid. We had therefore marked the complaint as 'resolved'.

The player from Texas had attempted to withdraw $2,500 from her $10,000 winnings at Lucky Legends. Despite having provided all requested documents and her bank having approved the international wire transfer, her withdrawal was delayed. The casino had suggested the player use Bitcoin for withdrawal, as their third-party payment providers could only transfer to certain banks. The player had expressed frustration about the withdrawal process and the casino's customer service. In the end, the player had decided to cancel her withdrawal and played out her balance. Consequently, the complaint was dismissed as there was no longer a balance to be withdrawn.

The player from Ireland had experienced some issues with an online casino. She had an old account with a verified address and had recently resumed playing. However, she had moved and was trying to change her address on her account. The casino had requested bank statements as proof of address, then later declined to accept them. Furthermore, she had an approved withdrawal, but the casino was asking for proof of payment. She had attempted to log into her account but was unable to do so. The casino had claimed that her deposit was rejected by her bank and therefore, her account was deactivated. Despite her attempts to provide proof of deposit, the casino and the complaints team had not been able to confirm the deposit, resulting in an unresolved issue. The complaint was closed as "rejected".

The player from Ohio had requested four withdrawals of $2500 each from the casino two weeks prior. Despite having been verified twice and having been informed by support that everything was in order, she had not received her money. The player had provided detailed correspondence with the casino, outlining the inconsistencies in their responses regarding the payment methods. Upon intervention by the Complaints Team, the casino had been invited to clarify the situation. The player later confirmed that she had received the first payout and the issue had been resolved. The casino also confirmed that all payouts were working correctly. Despite extending the timer for any additional issues, the player did not confirm if the complaint could be considered resolved, leading to the closure of the complaint as Rejected

The player from Texas faced issues when trying to withdraw a substantial win. The casino had denied the use of certain payment methods for various reasons, and they requested a bank statement for a newly set up Wells Fargo account, causing further delay. Throughout the process, he encountered multiple delays in receiving his winnings, with withdrawals taking longer than expected and being limited to $2,500 per week. Despite several payments being made, he reported ongoing issues with the processing of his withdrawals and a lack of communication from the casino regarding the status of his funds. The Complaints Team made multiple inquiries to the casino on his behalf, but ultimately, the complaint was rejected due to a lack of response from the player.

The player from Texas is experiencing difficulties with a withdrawal request of $2100. Despite multiple emails sent and one complaint filed on trustpilot, he has not received his prize. The complaint was resolved as the player successfully received the money from the casino.

The player from Missouri had submitted a withdrawal request less than two weeks before contacting us. Winnings hadn't been obtained up to that day. The player's account had been verified and she had successfully withdrawn from the casino before. Despite the withdrawal being approved, the player hadn't received her $100 winnings. After our intervention and communication with the casino, the casino confirmed that the payment had been delivered via Bitcoin. The complaint was kept open for the player's confirmation, but the player did not respond within the given time frame. As a result, the complaint was rejected. A few weeks later we received an email from the player, in which she informed us about receiving the withdrawal therefore the status of the complaint was changed to "resolved".

The player from North Carolina had had an issue with a delayed withdrawal from an online casino. After she had submitted the complaint, the Complaints Team had advised her that it was normal for withdrawals to take a couple of days or weeks to process and suggested waiting at least 14 days before filing a complaint. The player later confirmed that she had received her withdrawal, and the issue had been marked as resolved.

The player from Washington had been waiting for a withdrawal, even after meeting all bonus playthrough requirements. We reached out to him for additional information and extended the response time by 7 days. However, the player did not respond to our messages and questions, thus hindering further investigation. As a result, we had to reject the complaint due to lack of cooperation from the player's side.

The player from Colorado had requested a withdrawal from an online casino but did not receive her money even after two weeks, which led her to file a complaint. The player claimed that she had submitted the necessary documents multiple times, but the casino kept asking for them again. The casino had responded, stating that the quality of the documents she submitted was poor and incomplete. After the player resubmitted the documents, the casino confirmed that everything was in order for the withdrawal. The casino then stated that the payout would be processed soon. However, the player did not confirm receipt of the payment, which led to the rejection of the complaint.

The player from the United States had requested a withdrawal a month ago. Despite the request having been approved on 11/8, the payout had still not been received. After the player confirmed that the transaction was authorized and approved for withdrawal, we had transferred the complaint to another team member for further assistance. The casino had been invited to provide their side of the situation. The casino claimed that the withdrawal request was for $500 and additional funds had been re-deposited into the player's account due to lack of approved payout method. They also mentioned that two recent withdrawal requests for $250 and $300 were still within the timeframe per their terms and conditions. However, the player had failed to respond to our messages and questions, leading us to reject the complaint.

The player from the US had requested a withdrawal amount of $1,800.00. The initial request through wire transfer couldn't be processed. Although she had complied with all requests and even attempted to change to a check withdrawal method, the casino hadn’t processed the withdrawal. The casino had stated that their 3rd party payment providers were unable to process payment to the bank in question. The player was advised to open a Bitcoin account, which she did, and requested the withdrawal again. After providing her Bitcoin address and waiting for some time, she finally received the funds. The complaint was resolved with the assistance of the complaints team.

A player from South Carolina is facing issues with Lucky Legends casino regarding a Bitcoin withdrawal. He received a lesser payment without any confirmation from the casino, and despite evidence showing the transaction, the casino denies initiating this payment. The player wants to receive his remaining $15. The complaint was resolved as the player received his money from the casino.

This player from Ohio had experienced withdrawal issues with a casino after requesting a $950 payout. His withdrawal was denied with the reason allegedly being his Bitcoin address. Despite being told by support that his documents were in order, he hadn't received a payout. After we had invited the casino representative to the conversation, they confirmed that the payout was made on November 24th via Bitcoin and marked as delivered. The player later confirmed receipt of his withdrawal, leading us to mark this complaint as resolved.

The player from Connecticut had reported an inability to sign into his casino account and a lack of response from customer support. He had a withdrawal amount of $165. After we investigated, we found that the player's account had been deactivated due to multiple payment reversals, which was a breach of the casino's terms and conditions. The casino had provided evidence to support this claim. As a result, we concluded that the complaint had been unjustified and we rejected it.

The player from the United States had requested a withdrawal after meeting the Playthrough requirements, but her request had been declined and the funds were returned to her balance. The casino support had insisted that she had only completed part of the required Playthrough, which had led to confusion. Despite this, the player had been adamant that she had correctly completed the Playthrough. Eventually, the player's withdrawal had been processed, albeit with an $18 fee, which she had found frustrating. The issue had been resolved when the payment was received, leading us to mark the complaint as 'resolved'.

The player from the United States experienced a delay in withdrawal after winning $190.00 and fulfilling the requested information. Despite having contacted the online casino multiple times and providing all documentation, the casino then requested the player's banking statements. The casino claimed that their 3rd party payment providers were unable to collect any of the player's deposits, which was why they were unable to process the winnings. We had asked the player to provide bank statements to prove that the deposits had cleared their bank. The player had not responded to our request, and therefore, we were unable to investigate the issue further.

The player from South Africa had requested a withdrawal and was asked by the casino to open a Bitcoin wallet and provide additional documents. The casino later refused the payout because the player had claimed multiple bonuses consecutively. We had sought clarification from the player to better understand the situation and asked for relevant communication between the player and the casino. However, the player had not responded to our queries within the extended 7-day period, which led us to reject the complaint due to lack of information.

The player from the United States successfully became a VIP member in LuckyLegends Casino and submitted a withdrawal request for $590 via Bitcoin. However, despite being previously verified, the player was asked to resubmit ID documents during the withdrawal process. The approval process took around a month, she is still waiting for the bitcoin to appear in her wallet. We contacted the casino representative, and they confirmed the payout was processed. Later, the player shared the news that the payment was received, so we closed the complaint as resolved.

The player from South Africa had experienced a withdrawal delay after his first successful withdrawal request. Despite having passed the KYC verification and accumulated his winnings through a "No deposit bonus", his winnings were not received within the stated 7-10 business days. However, after communicating with the casino's VIP Manager, he confirmed receipt of his winnings. We had subsequently marked the complaint as resolved.

The player from California had requested a withdrawal of their winnings three weeks ago. Despite having provided all requested documentation, the withdrawal had not been processed. We had reached out to the player for additional information to better understand the situation and had extended the response time by 7 days. However, the player did not respond to our queries. As a result, we could not proceed with the investigation and had to reject the complaint.

The player from South Africa had requested a withdrawal a month ago but had not received her funds. Upon investigation, we found that the player had not made a minimum qualifying deposit which was required for the payment method verification. We had asked the player to make the necessary deposit and notify us about the progress. However, the player had failed to respond to our messages and update us on her actions, leading to the rejection of the complaint due to lack of cooperation.

The player from California had requested a withdrawal from an online casino three weeks prior. Despite the withdrawal having been approved, the casino had delayed the payout date and had not released the funds. The player had confirmed that she passed all necessary verifications. The Complaints Team had invited a casino representative to participate in the complaint. Despite having received confirmation from the casino that the payout was processed, the player did not confirm receipt of her winnings. As a result, we had to reject the complaint due to lack of confirmation from the player.

An Arizona player had been experiencing issues with withdrawing her winnings from an online casino since August 30th, 2023. Despite having submitted her banking information multiple times, the casino had claimed not to have received it. The player's account had been verified and a $100 bonus was retrieved by the casino, but her withdrawal requests were consistently rejected. After extensive communication between the player, the casino, and the complaints team, the casino finally acknowledged receipt of all necessary documents. The player had been informed that her funds would be disbursed via a bank wire payment within 3-10 business days. The player confirmed the receipt of $544 out of the $600 she had attempted to withdraw, marking the resolution of her complaint.

The player from California had requested a withdrawal from an online casino but didn't receive her money even after two weeks. She was frustrated with the drawn-out verification process and felt the casino had provided misleading information. The Complaints Team had advised her to be patient and cooperate with the casino. Despite her dissatisfaction with the casino's customer service and withdrawal process, the player confirmed that she had eventually received her withdrawal. The issue was then marked as 'resolved' by the Complaints Team.

The player from Missouri had encountered issues with delayed withdrawal of her approved $2500 from Lucky Legends Casino. Despite the casino's policy that permitted only $2500 to be withdrawn at a time, the player had claimed to have lost $30,000. The complaint was initially rejected due to the player's lack of response. However, it was later reopened and subsequently closed after the player had confirmed receipt of her payout from the casino.

The player from the US was frustrated over the delayed withdrawal of their winnings. Additionally, they expressed discontent with the customer service they received, alleging harassment and taunting from casino support agents. The player demanded their winnings be paid and threatened legal action if not. We found that the player's winnings were accumulated from a free bonus, which according to the casino's terms and conditions, limited the maximum withdrawal to $100. The player's account was closed due to a violation of these terms. Despite the player's allegations of fraud and threats of legal action, we concluded that the complaint was unjustified based on the evidence provided.

The player from Texas, after being fully verified, utilised a casino bonus and won over $4000. However, their $2500 withdrawal request via BTC was rejected and winnings were confiscated.It came to light that the player had used mulitple free bonuses in a row, and so was in breach of the casino's terms and conditions. Consequently, the complaint was rejected.

The player from Pennsylvania had submitted a withdrawal request less than two weeks prior to contacting us. Winnings hadn't been obtained up to that day. The player had expressed confusion over the casino's rules and mentioned an issue with multiple free bonuses. The casino had approved her withdrawal after she made a deposit as requested. However, the player had reported that her approved documents were not showing up in the system, which caused her to feel unsure about the casino's reliability. Despite our efforts to assist her, the player did not respond to our requests for further information. Therefore, we were unable to investigate the matter further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Missouri is struggling with a delayed withdrawal of $246.05 via Bitcoin. Despite meeting all wagering requirements, the processing time has taken two weeks, and they have yet to gain access to their funds due to network fees and block chain issues. The player has reached out to the casino, Coinbase, and a professional for help. The complaint was resolved as the player's withdrawal arrived.

The player from Oregon had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting the complaint. The payment hadn't been processed yet. Despite the casino having verified her account and confirmed that all necessary documents were received, the player's withdrawal was denied, forcing her to restart the process. The player had provided a transaction list as proof of her legitimate winnings. We had extended the timer for her response by 7 days but received no further communication from her. Consequently, we were unable to investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from California had had an issue with withdrawing his winnings from a VIP bonus at an online casino. Despite the casino's assurances that his account verification had been completed, his withdrawal request, made on August 15th, had not been processed. After communicating with the casino's support team, his withdrawal had finally been approved. The player had been informed it would take 3-4 weeks to receive his winnings. He later confirmed that he had received his payment. The Complaints Team had marked the case as resolved upon receiving this confirmation.

The player from Arizona was facing withdrawal issues. After completing all bonus requirements and verification processes, the casino claimed there were multiple accounts associated with their info. Later, the casino provided us with sufficient evidence to support its claims and decision. The complaint was closed as unjustified because the user registered and used at least 3 other accounts in the casino and claimed multiple no-deposit bonuses prior to accumulating winnings on the disputed account. In addition, the no-deposit bonuses were already used earlier and consecutively without making deposits between them, which breached another rule related to no-deposit bonuses. The casino acted correctly and in accordance with its terms and conditions, and we accept its decision. The player is not entitled to the disputed winnings obtained in this way.

The player from Florida has had difficulty withdrawing their winnings of $400. Despite sending numerous identification documents over a 2-week period, the casino requests new documents every day and their withdrawal remains unprocessed. We rejected the complaint because the player stopped responding.

The player from the United States is experiencing delays in a requested wire transfer withdrawal from the casino. Despite being told it could take a month, it's still processing. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Alabama is facing a payment delay. He requested a withdrawal two weeks ago, but it has not been processed yet. The casino policy states a timeframe of 1-7 business days to approve and receive the payout, but this timeframe has already been exceeded. Even without the player's confirmation, we closed the complaint as resolved since the casino confirmed a successful transaction via crypto.

The player from Tennessee has requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. Their money hasn’t been received yet. We got in touch with the casino representative, and they informed us that the payment had been processed. The player confirmed receiving the money a few days later, so the complaint was closed as resolved.

The player from California created an account in Lucky Legends Casino, won a bonus, and was asked to verify their identity for withdrawal. Citing past experiences with identity theft, the player declined, after which their account was closed without clear explanation.

The player from Arizona made a withdrawal request on June 27th and was still waiting for it to be processed. We contacted the casino to get more information about the reasons of the delay, however the player informed us that the issue got resolved and they received the payment, therefore we closed the complaint as a resolved one.

The player from California has two withdrawal requests, one of which was paid out, while the other for $1000 is still pending. The casino claims that they are too busy to process the withdrawal. The issue has been resolved successfully.

The player from Netherlands has requested account closure, but the casino continues to keep the account active and send bonus offers via email. We closed the complaint because the player stopped responding.

The player from Germany 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 the United States made a deposit and won $2,400 using a no-wagering, no-max cashout bonus. The casino rejected the player's request for a $2,000 withdrawal, citing table gameplay with the remaining funds after the withdrawal was requested. Although the casino was able to pay out a part of the disputed winnings, we concluded that the complainant is entitled to the full disputed winnings with a possible deduction of a returned initial deposit and a deposit bonus that she spent after the casino decided to deny her pending withdrawal and "reset" her balance. We could have not agreed with the way of a solution provided by the casino, while the $1,000 of her disputed winnings were deducted from her winnings unreasonably. This amount was left in the complaint as a remaining disputed amount until the casino reconsiders its decision. Therefore, we were forced to close it as unresolved.

The player from the US cannot withdraw her winnings. The casino accused her of redeeming multiple free chips consecutively. We were forced to close this complaint because the casino acted in compliance with the bonus terms.

The player from United States had her winnings cancelled due to a rule forbidding a redemption of multiple consecutive Free Bonuses. We ended up rejecting the complaint because the casino provided evidence supporting its claims.

The player from the United States had her winnings cancelled to a rule forbidding a redemption of multiple consecutive Free Bonuses. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from the United States has requested a withdrawal. Unfortunately, the payment seems to be delayed. The casino representative had informed us that payments were processed, but this was not confirmed by the player, so, therefore, the complaint has been rejected.

The player's winnings were confiscated as she was not supposed to get a bonus. Later, in the given circumstances, the casino reconsidered its decision and returned the confiscated funds to the player. Although the returned amount was divided between the used payment method and the player's casino account balance, and the player, unfortunately, lost it by playing, the casino fulfilled its part of the agreement. The complaint is resolved.