PrimaPlay Casino Review

The player from Michigan states their winnings were denied due to a slight breach of wagering rules. The player claims the casino didn’t make it clear that free spins winnings had a wager limit. They believe the situation resulted in the confiscation of their winnings amounting to $4,000.

The player from the United States had complained about inconsistent deposit and withdrawal amounts at the casino. He asserted that the casino approved smaller withdrawals and declined larger ones. He also alleged that the casino did not fully provide an approved withdrawal amount. The player confirmed that he had passed the KYC verification and stated that he had played with a bonus after making a deposit. However, despite our team's repeated attempts to gather more information and extend the complaint's resolution timeline, the player did not respond. As a result, we were unable to investigate further, leading to the rejection of the complaint.

The player from Colorado had met the required playthrough amount with a bonus but was denied withdrawal. According to the casino, the player had exceeded the set maximum bet of $5 per hand even after meeting the playthrough condition. The player had claimed to have adhered to the betting limits until after meeting the playthrough requirements, but the casino had later provided evidence that the player breached the maximum bet rule many times during the bonus play. After reviewing the evidence, we concluded that the casino had acted correctly and the complaint was unjustified.

The player from the United States had received a split payment from the casino, with the first payment being sent correctly. However, she had not received the remaining money despite having waited over a month, beyond the 7 business days she was told. The Complaints Team had reached out to the player for further details to better understand the situation, but the player did not respond. Consequently, we were unable to investigate further and had to reject the complaint due to the lack of response from the player.

The player from Georgia had expressed dissatisfaction with his betting results, claiming that despite a bet amount of 50 cents, the winnings were disappointing and his balance rapidly depleted. We had informed the player that without concrete evidence of any unfair practices, we were unable to initiate an investigation based solely on his claims. We extended the response time by 7 days, however, the player did not provide further information, leading to the rejection of the complaint due to lack of response.

The player from Kentucky had played on a bonus and met the criteria; however, when she attempted to cash out $500, her winnings were confiscated. We had attempted to investigate the issue by asking the player several questions and extending the response time by 7 days. However, due to the player's lack of response, we were unable to proceed with the investigation and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Louisiana is having issues getting bonuses and depositing money into their account after successfully cashing out a win. They have tried contacting the support team, but haven't received a reply for over three weeks. The complaint was rejected as the player stopped responding.

The player from Portugal had deposited $28 at an online casino, played, and then decided to withdraw his balance. The casino had accused the player of violating rules, banned his account, and charged a $10 fee. The player had contacted us for assistance. We had clarified the situation with him and found out that the casino had confiscated $10 out of his $28 balance and returned the remaining $18. After reviewing the casino's Terms and Conditions, we discovered that they reserved the right to charge withdrawal fees and close player accounts. As the casino had acted within their stated rules and the player had received the remaining balance, we could not proceed with the complaint. The complaint was subsequently rejected.

The player from Greece was facing withdrawal conflicts due to bonus restrictions. They completed the required rounds on allowed games and attempted to withdraw. However, the casino denied withdrawal claiming the money was still tied to bonus restrictions, which the player disputes. It turned out that the casino confiscated the player's winnings due to playing restricted games. However, although it was a "sticky" bonus, and the "non-redeemable" bonus amount should have been deducted from the user's balance upon processing a withdrawal (which did not happen), we found out that the restricted games were played after the wagering requirements for the bonus in question were completely met. The player did not gain any unfair advantage by playing in such a way, and it looks like she did not try to abuse the bonus or the casino system in any way. Playing the restricted games even caused her a little loss. Therefore, in combination with the casino's unclear Terms and Conditions regarding deposit bonuses and Free Spins and/or their application, we cannot see a justified reason for winnings confiscation, and we closed the complaint as unresolved.

The player from New York was denied a $400 payout due to a supposedly non-compliant bet at her online casino. The casino claims she bet $20 on one occasion, exceeding her bonus rule maximum of $5. However, the player insists she never wagered more than $2 and has found no record of this bet in her play history.