Megaslot.io Casino Review

The player from Austria was facing issues with his casino, claiming his payouts were being deliberately withheld. He was unhappy that the withdrawal process was not completed within 30 hours. We attempted to gather more information about his account status and the nature of his winnings, but the player did not respond to our inquiries. As a result, we were unable to investigate further and had rejected the complaint.

An Austrian player had submitted a withdrawal request to Unislots that went unanswered despite complete verification. The player confirmed that their account had been fully verified prior to the payout and no bonus was used to accumulate the winnings. The player expressed frustration with the lack of support from the casino and mentioned that Unislots had been blacklisted on other casino test sites due to increasingly occurring payment issues. However, the issue was eventually resolved and the player confirmed receipt of the payout. Consequently, we had marked the complaint as 'resolved'.

The player from the Netherlands had won 3,500€ and had initiated withdrawals for 1,500€ and 2,000€. However, the casino had unexpectedly zeroed the player's account, citing a technical error, and allegedly further violations of terms. The player had denied violations and believed the explanations provided were false claims. The complaint had been escalated to the Complaints Team, who had contacted the casino for further clarification. The casino had acknowledged a system error that had affected the player's account and other accounts. The casino had committed to rectify the error by returning the funds to the player's balance and assigning a new VIP manager to the player. The player had confirmed receipt of the funds, resolving the complaint.

The player from Austria had experienced problems with the verification process in Betsomnia casino despite having submitted all the required documents repeatedly, which had prevented him from withdrawing his $5000 winnings. The issue had started on February 10, 2024, and the casino had insisted on him providing a bank statement for the final verification step. After a month, the player had managed to verify his account and received his payout. However, due to the complex verification process, the player had decided not to play at this casino anymore. The complaint had been resolved successfully.

The player from Germany had requested self-exclusion due to gambling addiction but continued to lose money as his account was not blocked and no reply had come to his email. He demanded a refund of his deposits. He had provided evidence of his self-exclusion request and insisted that the casino had overlooked his request. Later, the player confirmed that he had received the refund, and we marked the complaint as resolved.

The player from the Netherlands had experienced issues with multiple pending deposits at Betsomnia Casino. Despite having reached out to the casino multiple times, she had received no resolution. After she submitted her complaint with us, the casino had begun to address her issue. The player had been required to provide several documents, including her ID and bank statement. The casino had found the missing deposits and had informed the player that they would credit her account soon. However, the credited amount was less than expected and had appeared as a bonus, which she couldn't withdraw. The player then expressed her dissatisfaction with the casino. Eventually, the issue had been resolved to the player's satisfaction, and the casino had provided an explanation for the error, stating that it had been due to incorrect bonus settings, which they had since corrected. The complaint had then been marked as 'resolved'.

The player from Germany had gambled at Betsomnia and had won slightly more than €20,000, according to the bonus rules stated at that time. After the win, the casino had reduced the balance to €5000 due to an alleged policy that had not been stated in the original terms. The casino later amended the bonus terms to a "10x bonus maximum payout", which had not been stated prior to the player's winnings. The player had contested this action, arguing that the bonus terms at the time of his play did not include this rule. The casino acknowledged that the rule was added later, but maintained that it had been in place at the time of the player's winnings. After a series of discussions mediated by the Complaints Team, the casino had agreed to pay the player the full amount of his winnings. The player had confirmed receipt of all funds, thus resolving the complaint.