Mr. O Casino Review

The player from Nebraska used a free spin promo on Mr. O and encountered issues when trying to redeem his winnings. The casino accused him of using the promo code multiple times and allegedly opening 160 accounts from his IP address, both of which he denied. Despite repeated inquiries, he did not receive a satisfactory response from the casino. We contacted the casino for evidence, but they stopped responding. As the casino operated without a valid license and didn't refer to any ADR service, the complaint was marked as 'unresolved'.

The player from the US had issues withdrawing winnings from Mr. O Casino. After initial difficulties with document verification, their withdrawal request was denied due to accusations of using the same code twice and having multiple accounts. Despite insisting she only had one account, the player had yet to receive a response from the casino's support team. The Complaints Team contacted the casino, which confirmed the presence of multiple similar accounts but agreed to process the winnings upon successful verification. The player completed the verification, and the winnings were received, resolving the issue.

The player from Pennsylvania had experienced difficulties with a withdrawal from the casino. Despite numerous deposits, the casino had confiscated her winnings because she reportedly failed to make a deposit within the last 12 bonuses, all of which were no deposit free spins. Upon our investigation, it was found that the player had been unaware of the casino's term prohibiting multiple bonus claims without depositing, which was considered bonus abuse. Despite our efforts to assist, the player hadn't responded to our messages and questions, leading us to reject the complaint due to lack of further information.

The player from Canada had used several consecutive coupons on Mr. O without making a deposit. The casino had accepted the coupons but later refused to pay out the winnings, restricted the player's access to coupons, and confiscated his winnings. We had reached out to the player for more information to better understand the situation and extended the response time by 7 days. However, due to the lack of response from the player, we had to reject the complaint. We were unable to proceed with the investigation or provide potential solutions without the player's input.

The player from Ontario was upset with the casino's policy of allowing only one withdrawal per day, which had resulted in a loss of $240 USD despite having deposited only $10 USD. We had sought further details from the player to understand the issue better and assist more effectively. However, due to the player's lack of response to our queries, we were unable to proceed with an investigation or provide potential solutions. Consequently, the complaint was rejected, but the player retained the option to reopen it in the future.

The player from the United States had reported an inability to withdraw her winnings from Mr. O Casino, despite having completed the playthrough and made a deposit. She had experienced issues with CashApp and switched to using Bitcoin, but was informed that the sender hadn't paid sufficient fees. Even after the funds had been returned to her account, her withdrawal attempts were continually denied, and she was eventually blocked from the casino. After communication with the Complaints Team, the player confirmed that the casino had paid her and the issue had been resolved successfully.

The player from Oregon had faced a withdrawal issue due to the casino's claim of multiple accounts under the same IP address. The player had denied having multiple accounts. After the player contacted the casino, his account was verified for withdrawal and the casino offered him additional no-deposit bonuses. Since the player didn't clarify our questions, we couldn't consider the issue resolved and was instead closed as rejected.

The player from Florida had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting her complaint. Her money had not been received yet. She had played on a bonus and met all the wagering requirements. The casino had requested an additional deposit of $10, which she had made. However, her withdrawal was rejected by her bank. Communication with the casino led to no resolution. The casino claimed to have sent the winnings to the player's crypto address, but the player stated she hadn't received it. The Complaints Team had attempted to mediate the situation, but without confirmation from the player on the receipt of her winnings, the complaint had been rejected.

The player from Alabama had contested the casino's claim that he had used a bonus code multiple times from the same IP. Despite this, he had been refused a $50 payout after playing by the rules and submitting the necessary documents. The player had been asked for additional information and documents to verify his account. However, he did not respond to the requests for further details. As a result, we were unable to proceed with the investigation and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Colorado is dealing with persistent technical issues at a new online casino. The screen frequently malfunctions or shuts down during games, interfering with the player's chances to win. They are considering exploring other platforms and seeking a refund. The complaint was rejected as the player was not eligible for a refund.

The player from California faced issues withdrawing winnings of $285 after starting with a free bonus. The casino claimed a rule violation, but the player argued that the rules should not have applied after the bonus was canceled. After discussions with the casino, it was resolved that the casino would offer the player 100 free spins as compensation, despite the player's dissatisfaction with the outcome. The player confirmed receipt of the spins, and the complaint was subsequently closed as resolved.

The player from Alabama had submitted a withdrawal request less than two weeks before contacting us. Winnings had not been obtained up to that day. We informed her that withdrawal processing could take a few days to weeks, often due to KYC verification or high withdrawal volumes. The player later confirmed that the withdrawal was processed successfully. The complaint was resolved and closed.

A player from the United States had won using a no-deposit bonus but was denied her withdrawal due to alleged multiple accounts or multiple bonus claims tied to the same IP/physical address. The player explained that she lived alone in a multi-unit building with shared Wi-Fi and believed her neighbors also signed up after hearing about her win. We contacted the casino, which confirmed that the winnings would be reimbursed once document verification was completed. The player confirmed receiving $100. The issue was resolved, and the case was closed.