Nitro Casino Review

The player's account had been closed for an unknown reason. The player couldn't provide specific details about his account verification or registration. However, he had confirmed that his casino balance was real money and not bonus money. He hadn't received any communication from the casino for over ten days since they had mentioned forwarding his issue to a relevant department. After several attempts to get a response from the casino, the Complaints Team had suggested the player seek assistance from eCOGRA, the official Alternative Dispute Resolution of the casino. The player followed the suggestion and filed a claim with eCOGRA. Consequently, the complaint had been temporarily closed while awaiting the outcome of the regulator's investigation. After waiting for the outcome of the investigation for an extended period of time, the player was asked to provide an update on the situation. As the player stopped responding, the complaint was rejected.

The player from Poland has been accused of breaching the bonus T&Cs. However, the casino also confiscated winnings, that were not accumulated with this bonus. The complaint was rejected because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player requested back his deposit after the casino blocked his account. The casino sent us relevant evidence that the player's balance was zero at the time of closing his account. In cases where the player has no remaining balance, he has no right for a refund from the casino therefore the complaint was rejected.

The player from Finland had her account blocked without any further explanation. The player had escalated this case to the regulator, so the complaint had been temporarily closed while we awaited the outcome of their investigation. We reopened this case as it had been three months since it had been initially submitted to the Licensing Authority for their decision. The player had been a member of the casino for about 2 years and had played various games with both her own money and bonuses offered by the casino. After weeks of internal discussions and communications with the casino, no progress had been made. Therefore, we had recommended the player to seek assistance from the Licensing Authority, specifically eCOGRA. The player had contacted eCOGRA and after some time, confirmed that the issue had been resolved and she had received her funds. We had marked the case as 'resolved' following the player's confirmation and the successful intervention by the official Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR).

The player from Finland had reported that his account had been blocked without any further explanation. He had primarily been playing slot games and his account had been closed on the 14th of the month. Despite his attempts to reach out to the casino via live chat and emails, he had received no substantial response. After a series of communications between the player, the casino, and the complaints team, no progress had been made. The complaints team had then suggested the player seek assistance from the licensing authority, eCOGRA. The player had followed the advice and after six months, he had finally been able to receive his outstanding funds from the casino. He had expressed his reservations about the way the process was handled by the casino. The complaint had been marked as resolved.

The player from Sweden had been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, their payout had not been received yet. The player reported that their KYC was fully verified and their bank account was approved for withdrawal. Despite this, the casino blocked them from all games and delayed communication. The issue was resolved when the casino finally paid out the winnings.

The player from Sweden had won and attempted to withdraw his winnings, but his account had been closed due to a reported gambling addiction at his address. Despite the casino having confirmed they would manually pay out the winnings and having received the necessary documents, they were still investigating the payout. The player had provided all the necessary information and confirmed that his account had been verified. Later, the casino confirmed that the player's withdrawal had been approved and the money was on its way. The player confirmed that the issue had been resolved, and we then marked the complaint as 'resolved'.

The player from Finland had her account blocked without any further explanation. The player had escalated this case to the regulator, so the complaint had been temporarily closed while we awaited the outcome of their investigation. We reopened this case as it had been three months since it had been initially submitted to the Licensing Authority for their decision. The player had been a member of the casino for about 2 years and had played various games with both her own money and bonuses offered by the casino. After weeks of internal discussions and communications with the casino, no progress had been made. Therefore, we had recommended the player to seek assistance from the Licensing Authority, specifically eCOGRA. The player had contacted eCOGRA and after some time, confirmed that the issue had been resolved and she had received her funds. We had marked the case as 'resolved' following the player's confirmation and the successful intervention by the official Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR).

The player from Netherlands has requested a self-exclusion due to a gambling problem. Afterwards, he was able to open an account in other casino owned by the same company. After an extensive communication with the casino representatives we have come to a mutual agreement and the complaint is now resolved.

The player from Sweden who had self-excluded from justspin.com for 60 weeks had signed up and deposited 4600 SEK on Rapid Casino, not knowing it was owned by the same company. When the player had requested a refund, it was denied on the grounds of violating terms and conditions by opening another account. After the player had complained, we had reached out to the casino for clarification. Despite initial non-responsiveness from the casino, we had managed to mediate the situation. Eventually, the casino had agreed to refund the player, resolving the issue to the player's satisfaction.

The player from Finland had her account blocked without any further explanation. The player had escalated this case to the regulator, so the complaint had been temporarily closed while we awaited the outcome of their investigation. We reopened this case as it had been three months since it had been initially submitted to the Licensing Authority for their decision. The player had been a member of the casino for about 2 years and had played various games with both her own money and bonuses offered by the casino. After weeks of internal discussions and communications with the casino, no progress had been made. Therefore, we had recommended the player to seek assistance from the Licensing Authority, specifically eCOGRA. The player had contacted eCOGRA and after some time, confirmed that the issue had been resolved and she had received her funds. We had marked the case as 'resolved' following the player's confirmation and the successful intervention by the official Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR).

The player had primarily played slot games at Rapid Casino and had his account closed on the 14th of the month. The casino had been unresponsive to his inquiries about the closure. The Complaints Team had attempted to mediate the issue but made no progress after several weeks of internal discussions and communication with the casino. Consequently, the player had been advised to seek assistance from the Licensing Authority, specifically eCOGRA. The player had followed this advice and also considered seeking legal assistance. After six months and a resubmission of his complaint to eCOGRA, the player had received communication from the casino asking for his banking information. The player had then received his outstanding funds and considered the case closed, despite reservations about the casino's handling of the situation. The complaint had been resolved and marked as such in our system.

The player from Canada had had an issue with withdrawing his winnings of $596 from 21.com. The casino had claimed that technical issues were the cause of the failed payment, while the player had suspected it was an attempt to avoid payment. The player had had no access to his account due to self-exclusion and thus couldn't cancel the withdrawal and make another request. After the Complaints Team had intervened and communicated with the casino, the player had finally received his winnings and requested the complaint to be closed. The issue had been successfully resolved.

The player from Finland had her account blocked without any further explanation. The player had escalated this case to the regulator, so the complaint had been temporarily closed while we awaited the outcome of their investigation. We reopened this case as it had been three months since it had been initially submitted to the Licensing Authority for their decision. The player had been a member of the casino for about 2 years and had played various games with both her own money and bonuses offered by the casino. After weeks of internal discussions and communications with the casino, no progress had been made. Therefore, we had recommended the player to seek assistance from the Licensing Authority, specifically eCOGRA. The player had contacted eCOGRA and after some time, confirmed that the issue had been resolved and she had received her funds. We had marked the case as 'resolved' following the player's confirmation and the successful intervention by the official Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR).

The player from Finland had reported that he was blocked from his accounts across five different online casinos, namely XLbet, RapidCasino, JustSpin, 21.com, and CasinoFest, without a clear explanation. The player had claimed that the casinos confiscated his deposits, which were not bonus money. Despite several attempts to communicate with the casino, the issue had remained unresolved. The Complaints Team had advised the player to submit separate complaints for each casino and had suggested seeking assistance from eCOGRA, the official Alternative Dispute Resolution of the casino. The player then reported that he had received communication from 21.com support, requesting his banking information, and subsequently received the outstanding funds from all the casinos involved. The complaint had been closed as resolved.

The player from Finland had her account blocked without any further explanation. The player had escalated this case to the regulator, so the complaint had been temporarily closed while we awaited the outcome of their investigation. We reopened this case as it had been three months since it had been initially submitted to the Licensing Authority for their decision. The player had been a member of the casino for about 2 years and had played various games with both her own money and bonuses offered by the casino. After weeks of internal discussions and communications with the casino, no progress had been made. Therefore, we had recommended the player to seek assistance from the Licensing Authority, specifically eCOGRA. The player had contacted eCOGRA and after some time, confirmed that the issue had been resolved and she had received her funds. We had marked the case as 'resolved' following the player's confirmation and the successful intervention by the official Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR).

The player from Finland had an issue with his account having been blocked by an online casino, XLBet, without any explanation. Despite attempts by the Complaints Team to clarify the situation with the casino, no substantial progress had been made. The player had been advised to contact eCOGRA, the official Alternative Dispute Resolution of the casino. After six months of communication with eCOGRA, the player reported having received his outstanding funds from the casino. The Complaints Team had marked the complaint as resolved. However, the player had expressed concerns about the casino's handling of the situation.

The player from Sweden experienced significant delays and issues with withdrawing funds from Vauhdikas casino, despite having no problems at its sister casino, Rapid. After making two withdrawals, the player found that their funds were returned to the casino account and was then asked for new pictures of their Visa card, complicating the process further. The issue was resolved when the player received her funds after confirming that her account had been verified and her winnings were from real money. The Complaints Team marked the complaint as 'resolved' in their system.

The player from Finland had requested a withdrawal prior to submitting this complaint. Unfortunately, his winnings hadn’t been received at that time. After the intervention of the Complaints Team and their advice to the player to wait for at least 14 days, the player confirmed that he had received his withdrawal. The issue was successfully resolved and the complaint had been marked as 'resolved' in the system by the Complaints Team.

The player from Finland had her account blocked without any further explanation. The player had escalated this case to the regulator, so the complaint had been temporarily closed while we awaited the outcome of their investigation. We reopened this case as it had been three months since it had been initially submitted to the Licensing Authority for their decision. The player had been a member of the casino for about 2 years and had played various games with both her own money and bonuses offered by the casino. After weeks of internal discussions and communications with the casino, no progress had been made. Therefore, we had recommended the player to seek assistance from the Licensing Authority, specifically eCOGRA. The player had contacted eCOGRA and after some time, confirmed that the issue had been resolved and she had received her funds. We had marked the case as 'resolved' following the player's confirmation and the successful intervention by the official Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR).

The player had mainly played slots at CasinoFest and had his account blocked without explanation on the 14th of the month. Despite his attempts to contact the casino via live chat and email, he had received no response. The Complaints Team, unable to progress the case due to the involvement of multiple casinos and players, had advised the player to seek assistance from the Licensing Authority, eCOGRA. The player had followed this advice and also considered seeking legal assistance. After six months of no response from eCOGRA, the player had resubmitted his complaint. Eventually, the casino had requested his banking information and paid out the outstanding funds. The Complaints Team had marked the complaint as resolved. However, the player had expressed concerns about the casino's handling of the situation.

The player from Finland had her account blocked without any further explanation. The player had escalated this case to the regulator, so the complaint had been temporarily closed while we awaited the outcome of their investigation. We reopened this case as it had been three months since it had been initially submitted to the Licensing Authority for their decision. The player had been a member of the casino for about 2 years and had played various games with both her own money and bonuses offered by the casino. After weeks of internal discussions and communications with the casino, no progress had been made. Therefore, we had recommended the player to seek assistance from the Licensing Authority, specifically eCOGRA. The player had contacted eCOGRA and after some time, confirmed that the issue had been resolved and she had received her funds. We had marked the case as 'resolved' following the player's confirmation and the successful intervention by the official Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR).

The player from Peru requested a withdrawal more than three weeks ago. It hadn’t been received. The withdrawal was then canceled, so the player requested another payment but to a different bank. The casino required further documentation to verify the payment, and the player sent this as requested. The casino then responded to say that the account was now verified and that the player should request the withdrawal again. The player did so and after a short time received their payment.

The player from Luxembourg is struggling to pass the verification. The casino claims that documents are not of a sufficient quality. The casino blocked the player’s account. The player managed to provide a sufficient documents for verification and together with the help from the casino representatives the complaint is resolved.