Rollbit Casino Review

The player from Estonia requested a permanent self-exclusion from Rollbit Casino on April 7th. However, almost a week later, he was still able to access his account and lost $672.65 due to continued play.

The player from Russia had deposited $3000 through cryptocurrency at an online casino. After her account balance had reached $3800, the casino had blocked her account and requested documentation for verification. Despite her providing the required documents and clarifying that a friend had used the same device to play a year ago, her account was closed and the funds were not returned. The casino had cited abuse as the reason for account closure. We had concluded that the casino had acted within its terms and conditions, which prohibited the use of two different accounts from the same device. Therefore, we could not assist further and had to close the complaint.

The player from South Africa had successfully accumulated winnings from sports betting, but was unable to withdraw due to KYC procedures. Despite having fulfilled the requirements of all requested steps, the player's account was not unlocked, and their winnings were removed without explanation. We had attempted to gather more information from the player to assist with the investigation, but the player did not respond to our inquiries. As a result, we were unable to further investigate the issue and had to reject the complaint.

The player from California had raised a complaint about perceived unfairness in Slot games at an online casino. He felt targeted as a gambler and asked for a refund and exclusion from the site, claiming that the casino was aware of these issues. We had explained to the player that the nature of casino games involved both winning and losing, and without any evidence of unfair practices, we could not take any action. We also inquired if he had ever requested self-exclusion due to his gambling problem. However, the player did not respond to our inquiries within the given time frame, which led us to reject the complaint due to lack of information and cooperation from the player's side.

The player from Thailand had difficulty withdrawing his winnings from Rollbit. He was accused by Rollbit of maintaining multiple accounts, a claim he refuted, attributing it to the sharing of his email with business partners. His winnings, which ranged from $4000 to $5000, were seized. We attempted to understand the situation by asking the player questions and extending the response time. 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 Norway had won $14,800 at Rollbit but couldn't withdraw his winnings due to the casino's accusations of him having multiple accounts, which he denied. After a successful verification process, the casino still refused to grant access to his funds and halted further discussions. The player insisted that no one else from his household or using the same IP address had created an account at this casino. Despite our efforts to mediate the situation, the casino failed to provide evidence of the alleged multiple accounts. The player confirmed that his winnings were solely from sports betting. As our team lacked sufficient insight into sports betting and potential multiple-account strategies associated with it, we were unable to interpret the casino's results of the investigation and judge the case fairly. Therefore, we had to close the complaint.

The player, a German citizen who resided in Thailand, had his account blocked due to difficulties in verifying his identity. Despite his attempt to use his Swiss details, he faced issues due to his German passport. He had approximately €1,250 in his closed account. The player was allegedly able to provide the necessary documents as proof of his residency in Thailand. On the other side, the casino claimed that the player had not attempted to complete the basic level 1 KYC verification, which required the submission of name and address. In addition, the player's account had been closed due to issues related to sports betting and breaching its rules, so identity verification would not be possible anyway. The complaint was rejected because the allegations related to sports betting play, which was outside our area of expertise.

The player from Ghana had submitted a withdrawal request less than two weeks prior to contacting us, but had not received his winnings. We had advised him that withdrawal processing could take time, potentially due to unfinished KYC verification or a high volume of withdrawal requests, and suggested waiting at least 14 days before submitting a complaint. We also offered our assistance if the winnings were not received after 14 days. However, the player had not responded to our follow-up messages, leading us to close the complaint due to lack of communication.

The player from Palau had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting the complaint. The payment hadn’t been processed at that time. We had advised the player to be patient and wait for at least 14 days after requesting the withdrawal before submitting a complaint. We also extended the timer for the player's response by 7 days. However, the player hadn't responded to our messages and questions, thus we couldn't investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Slovenia initially had no issues with the casino, but after discussing their successful withdrawals on a platform's discord, the casino required KYC verification. The player refused, resulting in account suspension. Even after agreeing to comply with KYC, the casino is not responding to his requests to reinstate his account.