Planet 7 Casino Review

The player from California had reported that she had requested a withdrawal two weeks prior but had not received the payout despite it having been approved. She had claimed to have received various excuses from the casino and had been told to wait longer. The player's account had been verified, and she had fulfilled her wagering requirements. She had also reported having daily, unproductive conversations with the casino. After we invited the casino representative to the conversation, the casino confirmed that the payment had been processed. The player had confirmed receipt of her winnings, albeit with some confusion due to unfamiliar emails. We had marked the complaint as 'resolved'.

The player from the US had been refused a payment after redeeming several chips in a row at the casino. She had claimed that she was not warned or given a disclaimer about the rules of redeeming multiple Free Chips. However, we found that her winnings were solely accumulated from a Free Chip, making her eligible for a maximum cashout of $100, not the $630 she claimed. As no real money was lost when the casino confiscated her winnings, we had decided not to pursue the case further. The complaint was subsequently rejected.

The player from South Africa had been waiting for his withdrawal for over two weeks. After depositing more funds via Litecoin, the player had contacted the casino and was given a reference number. Despite being told he would be contacted within 72 hours, there had been no response for 11 business days. The player had confirmed this was his first deposit and withdrawal at the casino, and his account had been verified. The casino had claimed that the player's deposit was unsuccessful and his winnings were from the 3rd consecutive free chip, which according to their terms, made him ineligible for withdrawal. The player did not respond to confirm or deny these facts. Consequently, we could not investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Ohio had issues with Planet 7's deposit promotion. After making 3 deposits as part of an offer, he expected to receive $500.00 cash but received only $5.00 instead. Efforts to contact the casino via email had been unresponsive. We attempted to mediate the situation by contacting the casino, but received no response. Due to the casino's lack of a valid license and non-cooperation, we marked the complaint as 'unresolved'.

The player from Texas had lost access to his casino account after he requested a withdrawal of $155, which was supposedly being expedited. He possessed email proof of the withdrawal request and its expedited status. The player confirmed that his account had been verified. However, the casino stated that the player's withdrawal request had been denied due to insufficient funds to cover the non-cashable deposit coupon amount. The casino also claimed that the player's account had been suspended due to a connection with another flagged account. The player denied having another account. The casino didn't provide evidence of multiple accounts but clarified that the funds had been re-deposited into the player's account and played to zero by the player before the account closure. We had confirmed this from the provided evidence and rejected the complaint due to the lack of balance on the player's account at the time of making the complaint.

The player from Arkansas had won approximately $2500 from a no-deposit bonus at an online casino. However, the casino had required her to play $800 to enable withdrawal. After meeting this requirement, the player's game had frozen and her balance had dropped to $67. The player had also experienced significant payout delays. Despite efforts to communicate with the player and resolve the issue, the player had not responded to our inquiries. As a result, we were unable to further investigate the matter and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Germany had experienced withdrawal issues with an online casino. Despite having deposited money from the same account multiple times and providing the necessary documentation, the casino had stated that a withdrawal was not possible. The casino claimed to have transferred the winnings, but they had not appeared in the player's account. We had attempted to investigate the issue and asked the player several questions to clarify the situation. However, due to the lack of response from the player, we were unable to proceed with the investigation or provide potential solutions. The complaint had been rejected for now due to this lack of communication.

The player from South Carolina notes Bitcoin withdrawal discrepancies and manager fees totaling $801.25. Despite receiving initial responses, the casino has now stopped communication. After gathering all the necessary information, we decided to close this complaint as unjustified due to the fact that the deductions were reasonable. One deduction was the "sticky" non-withdrawable bonus and the other deduction/fee was the payment transaction fee which is associated with every withdrawal.

The player from Massachusetts has been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, their payout hasn’t been received yet. The complaint was rejected because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Nevada won a jackpot and requested a withdrawal of $1000, which was denied. The casino's reasoning was that the player had "mixed funds". The complaint was rejected because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from the United States had won a jackpot of €63,000 on a game, but the casino had refused to pay out the winnings due to multiple accounts linked to their address. The player had failed to respond to our initial queries, leading to the temporary rejection of the complaint. However, upon reopening the complaint at the player's request, it was revealed that the player had deposited funds using his mother's card, violating the casino's rules against using third-party payment methods. Despite the player's claim that the casino had accepted these deposits without issue, we were unable to assist further due to the violation of this fundamental rule. The complaint was ultimately rejected as unjustified.

The player from United States had her winnings cancelled due to a rule forbidding a redemption of multiple consecutive Free Bonuses. After a closer examination, we ended up rejecting this complaint as unjustified.

The player had their withdrawal approved for payout on 21st September, 2016. They were told the payment would be sent within 9-10 days. They sent numerous inquiries about status report, however, Planet7 staff had failed to respond every time. There is no update from the player neither about the disputed amount, nor any new reply of the casino.

The player deposited $30 and won $225. She got verified successfully and received a check from the casino coming from Canadian Bank of Montreal. After depositing the check to her bank, she was told the check was invalid because it was from a bank that had dissolved in 1999, so the bank no longer existed. Casino representative provided various proofs that the check was perfectly fine. The conversation went on, both sides accusing one another from lying. The casino representative suggested two options to resolve the case - either to contact Lea (Escalations Managers) or to contact the Central Disputes Resolution center. The case is uncertain and unresolved.

The player from Argentina played with a bonus. The casino confiscated his winnings for using two free chips consecutively. Since the winnings were confiscated in compliance with the bonus terms, we were forced to close this complaint.

The player from the United States was complaining about the lengthy verification process. The player had multiple accounts with multiple non-deposit bonuses, and the complaint was closed as "rejected".

The player complained they had submitted a withdrawal request two times already and they were both denied without any reason given. The live chat told them to resubmit it for the third time and it has been pending since. The time delay was not corresponding to expected processing time written in the TCs. The casino responded that their payments manager stated the withdrawal wouldn't be possible because of player's new bank account, however, it could be paid via Bitcoin.

The player from Australia has requested a withdrawal three weeks prior to submitting this complaint. Unfortunately, winnings haven’t been received yet. Player’s complaint has been resolved successfully.

The player from US was dissatisfied with the verification process. She was struggling to verify a virtual card that was used to make a deposit. The casino responded and stated that they had all of the relevant documentation to complete the verification, and asked the player to request the withdrawal again. The player did so but then said that the request had been denied. The casino advised that they needed confirmation of the Bitcoin address and that they had emailed requesting this, but it seems no emails were received by the player. The player was asked to send the confirmation but then became unresponsive, so the complaint was eventually rejected.

The player from United States had his winnings voided and his account blocked due to allegations of suspicious activity. The casino responded to say that unfortunately the player's deposit had been declined by the player's bank and so his winnings were rendered void. The player stated that there was no record of the transaction with his bank, but after discussing the case internally, it was decided that the casino acted in accordance with its terms and conditions and the complaint was rejected.

The player from Australia is dissatisfied with the withdrawal process. He has been waiting for weeks for his withdrawal. The issue was successfully resolved, the player's winnings were eventually paid.

The player from the US played with a bonus and tried to withdraw part of their winnings. The casino informed them that they are free to withdraw one part and play with the rest. However, later the casino confiscated all of the player's winnings because they played Blackjack with bonus funds. The case was rejected because there is no clear evidence proving the player's claims.

The player from the United States has been experiencing a long withdrawal process. The casino decided to send a check to the player as an alternative payment method. Based on the update received from the player, the complaint was reopened. We rejected the complaint again because the player did not respond to our messages and questions (the second time) and failed to provide us with the required documents.

The player from United States requested a withdrawal and after more than 3 weeks of waiting for the payment, she decided to submit a complaint. The player received the payment approximately 5 weeks after the withdrawal request. The complaint is resolved.

The player from United States has been accused of breaking the bonus T&Cs by playing a restricted game after completing the bonus wagering. Despite the fact that the complaint was justified, we ended up rejecting it because the casino is running on an RTG platform and therefore has no other options to limit the winnings from bonuses.

The player's winnings were voided as he deposited after finishing the wagering of his bonus. The player had free chip playable balance of $30 in the casino account at the time of deposit and deposit bonus activation ("mixing funds"). The casino credited him with the original deposit amount and the player lost it all later. The complaint was rejected because the casino provided us with the relevant evidence that supports the casino's statement and resolution. The casino acted within its terms.

The player from Australia tried to withdraw winnings, but instead the casino blocked the player's account. We ended up rejecting the complaint because it was not justified. The player made several chargebacks of his deposits.

The player from the United States asked for a second withdrawal at the casino, via Bitcoin. After 3 weeks she did not receive payment and created a complaint. After the casino representative was involved in resolving the complaint, the complaint was resolved. The player received payment after more than a month.

The player from United States requested a withdrawal, but the casino did not process his withdrawal for several weeks. After the casino representative was involved in resolving the complaint, the process moved on and the player received payment, approx. 2 months after the withdrawal was requested.

The player from Italy had his winnings cancelled without further explanation. The casino informed us and provided sufficient evidence proving the player had created multiple accounts for the purpose of redeeming free bonuses. The complaint was rejected as unjustified.

The player from United States had requested a withdrawal two months before submitting the complaint. It was still pending. The casino representative later informed us the payment had been successfully processed, however, without the player's confirmation, we were forced to reject this complaint.

The player from US has been waiting for his withdrawal for 3 weeks. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions. The player confirmed in his second complaint that he received the withdrawal.

The player from Italy had been waiting to receive his winnings for more than 7 weeks before he submitted the complaint. A few days later, the player confirmed he received his winnings. The complaint was closed as 'resolved'.

The player from United States has requested withdrawals six weeks ago. They have been pending since. The complaint was resolved after the player received his winnings. Although, the player found the long withdrawal process as a negative experience and not planing to continue playing in the casino.

The player from United States had requested a withdrawal two months ago, unfortunately, it has been pending since. After a long and exhausting investigation we concluded, that although there was a breach of conditions in place, the player was entitled to a sum of $2002 from the original disputed amount. However, due to the player's offensive behaviour to Casino.Guru team and Planet 7 Casino's representative, we were forced to reject this complaint and ban the player from our services.

The player from United States is experiencing difficulties withdrawing her winnings due to external processing issue. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player requested a withdrawal and sent all the documents needed for the account verification multiple times. They were told that their withdrawal had been approved and would arrive soon, but that didn't happen. No further details are available.

Kelly, a player from USA, complains that the casino blocked her account after she won in a jackpot game. She had a couple of accounts in this casino, however, one of the casino representatives advised her that the casino can still accept her deposit on one of her accounts and the rest would be canceled.

The player complained that after he had won and was about to request a withdrawal, the casino software was unresponsive. He was told to wait a few minutes but when he logged back into his account, it was closed. The player had issues with affiliate casinos before and was not happy with the way the Canadian casinos treat their players. Casino replied without any resolution offered to the player. No more update from the player.

The player from Australia has been waiting for his withdrawals since February. The casino managed to look into the issue and the withdrawals started coming to the player. The complaint was closed as 'resolved' since the withdrawals seem to be working to the player's satisfaction.

The player from Australia had been waiting to have her withdrawal processed for almost a month before submitting the complaint. The issue was resolved. Three weeks later, the player informed us she had received her funds.

The player won A$10,000 on May 22nd, 2019. All documents and withdrawals have been accepted and approved by the casino, but she only received A$2,480 and is still waiting for the rest. The issue was successfully resolved.

The player from the United States had followed all the necessary steps to play through a bonus and cash out. However, her withdrawal of $120 had not been approved despite assurances from a casino representative. After the player raised a complaint, we had facilitated communication between her and the casino. The casino had requested additional documentation and confirmation of the player's Bitcoin address. The player had expressed concern about the safety of sharing her Bitcoin address and the history of her withdrawal requests being cancelled. We had assured her that her Bitcoin address would only be visible to us and the casino. Eventually, the player received her payment and expressed gratitude for our assistance. The issue had been successfully resolved.

The player from Germany had requested a withdrawal from the casino a month ago, but had not received the funds. The player had confirmed that he had met the sales requirements for a no deposit bonus and had deposited $10 in Bitcoin to verify the payment method. This had been his first time playing at this casino and he had not redeemed any bonuses before. The casino had responded that players from Germany were not allowed to cash out on free welcome chips but mentioned a recent Bitcoin transfer of $24. The situation had been reviewed by the casino's relevant department. The complaint had eventually been resolved successfully.

The player from Alaska has been waiting for his withdrawal for two weeks, and suspects the casino might refuse to pay. He is dealing with multiple withdrawals, and even though a couple are approved, he has not received any payment.

The player from Poland won $100 from a free chip but has been unable to contact the casino despite submitting all the required documents. The player confirmed the case was resolved, so we closed it accordingly.

The player from the United States has requested a withdrawal more than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. Unfortunately, winnings haven’t been received yet. The issue has been resolved successfully.

The player from Indiana had been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, their payout hadn’t been received yet. We contacted the casino and found out that 2 of 3 withdrawal requests were already processed, and the third one was about to be approved by the casino. After several days, the player confirmed receiving their winnings in full amount, so we closed the complaint as resolved.

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

The player from United States has requested a withdrawal more than three weeks ago. It has been pending since. Even if we’ve assumed that the issue has been resolved, without a confirmation from the player, we were forced to reject this complaint. The player contacted us once more, stating that the issue was not resolved, therefore we reopened this complaint to give it one more chance. The player got payed and the case is resolved.

The player from Alabama had been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, their payout hadn’t been received at that time. The Complaints Team had advised the player to wait at least 14 days after requesting their withdrawal before submitting a complaint. After two weeks, the player confirmed that he had received his payout of $50, which was the maximum payout for the no deposit bonus he had used. The issue had been resolved successfully and the complaint had been marked as 'resolved' by the Complaints Team.

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

The player from the United States is having issues with login and withdrawal. After a deposit of $125, a software glitch prevented the player from accessing the game. Despite multiple password resets and emails to the support, the issue persists. Additionally, the casino has not processed a pending withdrawal of winnings worth $2500 despite numerous document submissions. The player later informed us that her winnings have been paid, so we closed the complaint as resolved.

The player from the United States had tried to make a withdrawal but was informed about missing documentation. Even though he provided all the requested documents, the casino kept asking for more information. The player had won the money without an active bonus. After the Complaints Team intervened, the Casino's Representative had confirmed that the player's account and bank transfer details were correct and that the withdrawal of $300 had been approved. However, the amount had included a non-cashable deposit bonus of $142, leaving the player with $158 to withdraw. This had been escalated for express disbursal. The player later confirmed receipt of the payment, and the complaint had been resolved.

The player from Kansas had requested two separate withdrawals from Slots Garden, totalling $2400. The casino had initially refused to pay her through Bitcoin, her preferred method because she hadn't deposited with Bitcoin. The casino had requested her bank details for a wire transfer, but later stated they couldn't send the money to her bank. The player had been unwilling to change her bank or open a second account to receive her winnings. After the intervention by us, the casino released the first portion of the withdrawal via Bitcoin and expedited the remaining payment. The player had confirmed receipt of her winnings and the issue had been successfully resolved.

The player from California had had an issue accessing her Slots Garden casino account via Inclave after accumulating about $1,400 in winnings. She had been unable to get in touch with Slots Garden or Inclave and had suspected foul play due to sudden device problems. We had to reject the complaint due to the player's lack of response to our messages and questions. However, the player later confirmed that the issue had been resolved.

The player from the United States had had issues withdrawing her $400 winnings from an online casino. Despite having submitted the required identification multiple times, her withdrawal had remained "in process" for over three weeks. The casino had clarified that the approved withdrawal amount was $130, accounting for a bonus and account confirmation deposit. Eventually, the player had received $116 of her winnings. The issue had been successfully resolved.

The player was facing issues with withdrawal. She had requested a payout of 880$ in Bitcoin, her payment method during the deposit. However, despite approval from the manager, the Bitcoin withdrawal was denied. It turned out it was a no-deposit bonus with a maximum cashout of $100 and a country restriction issue. Later, the complainant informed us that her issue was sorted out. The complaint is resolved.

The player from California has encountered problems with his withdrawal process despite verifying his account three times. He was promised a timeframe of 7 to 10 days which has extended, while communication with the casino remains the same. The issue of loyalty bonus limit was also raised. The complaint was resolved as the player's money got paid out.

The player from the United States had reported a delay in his withdrawal request since August 2nd. Despite having adhered to the casino's rules, his withdrawal request had remained unprocessed. He had confirmed that he was not a bonus abuser, as he had made numerous deposits and losses. The Complaints Team had asked for screenshots of his bonus and cashier histories for further investigation. Eventually, the player had confirmed that he received his payment from Slots Garden. We had closed the complaint as 'resolved', and had directed the player to open a separate complaint for another issue with Lucky Legends Casino.

The player from Virginia successfully beat the stipulated playthrough limit and requested a withdrawal. The casino requested a KYC process and a deposit of $10 in Bitcoin for address proof. While the player complied, their withdrawal request was later revoked due to casino's issues with CoinDraw. The player is unsettled about the additional waiting period stated by customer service and believes it's time for third-party intervention. We closed the complaint as resolved since the player confirmed receipt of the payment.

The player from the US requested four separate withdrawals using Bitcoin, but after two weeks, the requests were canceled and the money returned to their balance. Despite being assured that their issue would be resolved, the player hasn't received any specific support and the issue remains unresolved. The issue has been resolved successfully.

The player from South Africa had their withdrawals withheld and account blocked. The casino discontinued it's South African version, however they were able to process the withdrawal for the player and the complaint is resolved.

The player from South Africa was dissatisfied with the long withdrawal process and the casino’s support wasn’t helpful after inquiring about his withdrawal. The complaint was resolved. The player received his winnings nearly 3 months later, with unexpected fees deducted by one of the banks processing the payment.

William, a player from South Africa, won from a no deposit bonus and he is stuck on the verification process. He also expressed his dissatisfaction with the casino’s support and services. This case was successfully resolved.