Playfina Casino Review

The player from Brazil was unable to withdraw funds as the casino repeatedly rejected his proof of residence despite his submission of various official documents. The player contested the casino's claim that he had violated the maximum bet rule while using a bonus, arguing that he had been playing with his own funds. The Complaints Team acknowledged the player's decision to close the complaint, stating that they were available for assistance in the future if needed.

The player from Germany deposited €100 via instant transfer, which was confirmed and deducted, but the casino attributed delays to weekend processing and extended the wait time to 5 business days. The casino confirmed the funds were eventually credited to the player's account following a resolution with the payment provider. The complaint was marked as resolved.

The player from Austria's withdrawal request of 690 units had been denied by the casino. He insisted he hadn't canceled it and wanted his winnings. We reviewed the evidence and found that the player had canceled the withdrawal and subsequently played down the balance. Despite the player's claim of not playing down the balance, the casino provided detailed gaming history and session logs confirming the funds were used in gameplay. The complaint was closed based on this evidence.

The player from Australia had won a large sum but encountered difficulties while trying to withdraw it. Despite being fully verified, no withdrawal had been processed initially. The casino explained that the delays were due to additional verification and data entry errors. The player confirmed receiving a partial withdrawal of $4500. We advised the player to follow the casino's recommendations for future withdrawals and marked the complaint as resolved after the player expressed satisfaction with the resolution.

The player from Germany, who had self-excluded himself from the Dama N.V network due to gambling problems, managed to create an account at Playfina.com, also part of the same network, and deposited a total of €1352. He regarded this as a severe violation of responsible gaming practices by Playfina and requested a refund. The Complaints Team reviewed the case and explained that the casino operated under an Antillephone NV license, which did not enforce network-wide self-exclusions. The player's request for a refund was denied as the casino had followed its specific self-exclusion procedures, and no further action was taken.

The player from Australia had been dissatisfied with Playfina Casino due to uncredited bonuses, issues with promotions, and perceived poor customer service. Despite substantial deposits, he had felt he was not receiving the respect and benefits he deserved. The player had threatened to publicize his negative experience to his extensive social media following. In response, the casino had clarified its policies on promotions, the loyalty program, and bonuses, and stated that all promised bonuses had been credited. Following this, the player had acknowledged the casino's efforts to rectify the situation, specifically praising the assistance of the VIP manager, Emma. The player had expressed his gratitude to both the casino and the Complaints Team for resolving his issues. Consequently, the complaint had been marked as 'resolved'.

The player from Australia had attempted to withdraw winnings of 2800 but found the process impossible despite having been fully verified. After trying for two weeks and receiving no assistance, the player had lost faith in the casino. The casino had responded with a detailed explanation of the issues, including unverified payment methods and incorrect information provided by the player. Despite our attempts to communicate with the player for further clarification, there was no response. Consequently, we were unable to investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Australia had received several bonuses from the casino, fulfilled the wagering requirements, and accumulated a withdrawal balance of $2500. However, the casino had claimed this was bonus money and therefore its property, despite the player being fully verified and a regular depositor. After a lengthy dispute, the casino had identified a technical error where the player was mistakenly credited with a bonus level she had not yet reached. The casino had agreed to honor the winnings from the bonus provided by their VIP manager, amounting to $550. However, the funds had been delayed due to an incorrect BSB number provided by the player. After several attempts and corrections, the player had finally received her winnings. The player had since expressed her intention to take legal action against the casino for alleged defamation and breach of confidentiality. We had concluded the complaint after the casino resolved the withdrawal issue.

The player from Germany had raised a complaint about being denied a cashback bonus after depositing nearly 4,000€ at an online casino. He had stated that instead of receiving the promised cashback, the casino had been crediting random cash bonuses with high wagering requirements. Despite his VIP status and the cashback bonus being advertised on the casino's site, the player had not received it. The player had also pointed out a discrepancy in the cashback terms between the German and English versions of the casino's website. We had reviewed the casino's promotions page but found no information on the cashback bonus. We had informed the player that we lacked the authority to compel the casino to grant any specific bonus and suggested that he directly contact the casino for further clarification. The complaint was subsequently rejected due to lack of justification.

The player from Switzerland had raised a complaint regarding Playfina casino's lack of player protection tools. After substantial losses, the player had requested account closure due to a severe gambling addiction but the request was not immediately granted, resulting in further losses. We found that the player's initial request did not explicitly mention gambling addiction, and the casino had closed the account within a reasonable time after the player clarified the issue. As such, refunds for deposits made before the clarification were not possible. The player had deposited funds after the initial request, but any deposits made within 48 hours of the request were also not eligible for refund. We concluded that the casino had acted within its terms and conditions, hence the complaint was rejected. We had advised the player to always specify the reason when requesting account closure or self-exclusion.

The player from Australia had been experiencing problems withdrawing her winnings of $880 from the online casino. Despite her account being verified, her withdrawal requests had been repeatedly rejected. The casino's support team had advised her to cancel and retry the withdrawal. The player alleged that the casino was making excuses to avoid paying out her winnings. The casino, however, asserted that the player had repeatedly provided incorrect account details, leading to the rejections. The casino processed the player's most recent withdrawal request, but the funds had not yet reached her account. Despite the casino's advice to carefully check her details and contact their support team for assistance, the player had not confirmed receipt of her funds. The complaint was rejected as the player had not responded to further inquiries.

The player from Australia had encountered difficulties while trying to withdraw his winnings of 400 from an online casino. His initial withdrawal request had been kept pending for 48 hours before being cancelled due to a bank operation error. His second attempt had remained pending for three days, and an alternative withdrawal method using Litecoin was cancelled within 20 minutes. However, the issue had eventually been resolved when the player split his withdrawal into two transactions of 200 each, which the casino processed within an hour.

The player from North Rhine-Westphalia, despite being on the OASIS ban list, had been able to register and deposit money on the online casino, subsequently losing €700. The player had informed the casino about his issue, but they had failed to take immediate action. We had advised the player on how to request self-exclusion from the casino due to his gambling problems. However, the player had failed to respond to our follow-up messages. As a result, we were unable to further investigate and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Germany had his account locked after he attempted to withdraw 628€, which he had won after meeting the wager requirements of a welcome bonus. After the casino had requested additional documents, including a PDF of a bank statement and source of funds documentation, there had been a delay in the withdrawal process. However, following prolonged discussions with the casino, the player confirmed that he had received his winnings. We had therefore marked the complaint as 'resolved'.

A player from Germany expressed dissatisfaction after their account was abruptly closed when they were winning. The closure occurred without explanation and the casino has not refunded the deposit or provided the winnings. The player has contacted customer support but no resolution was proposed. The complaint was closed as the player stopped responding.

The player from Canada requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. Their money hasn’t been received yet. The complaint was rejected because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Australia has an unspecified issue with her withdrawal from the casino. Although it seems as though this issue has been resolved, the complaint was rejected because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

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