Rollbit Casino Review

The player from Germany had been excluded from the casino due to a suicide threat following a significant loss in early 2023. Despite this, in 2024, he managed to log in, make several thousand euros in deposits, and withdraw winnings. He then sought a refund of his deposits minus his withdrawals, citing non-compliance with player protection. However, the complaint was rejected due to the player's lack of response to further inquiries, which prevented further investigation.

The player from Connecticut signed up and played at Rollbit without undergoing an ID check, despite being underage. He lost a significant amount of money that was intended for medical expenses, causing distress within his family. The casino did not respond to his attempts at communication. We explained that the casino typically verified identity only upon withdrawal requests and that the player had breached terms by registering underage. The case was closed as it involved legal issues beyond our competence and required intervention by licensing and local authorities.

The player from Estonia had requested a permanent self-exclusion from Rollbit Casino on April 7th. However, almost a week later, he had still been able to access his account and had lost $672.65 due to continued play. The player had not provided the casino with a reason for the self-exclusion, such as gambling issues or addiction, which was a key requirement for the self-exclusion process. The casino had requested confirmation from the player on April 13th, which was not immediately provided. As a result, the casino had not had an obligation to exclude the player or refund the lost funds. The complaint was eventually rejected as the player failed to respond to further inquiries from the complaints team.

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.

The player from the UK had used a VPN to play at an online casino and was unable to access an account with $1,100 due to a change in device and loss of access to the account email. The casino was requesting KYC on this account which the player feared might lead to account closure. The player had admitted to not seeking permission to use a VPN and creating multiple accounts, which was against the casino's terms and conditions. We had informed the player that the usage of VPN and creating multiple accounts violated the casino's policy, giving them grounds to confiscate winnings. The player had understood the situation and appreciated the help, however, we had to reject the complaint as the player's actions were in violation of the casino's rules.

The player from Germany reported that Rollbit.com had allowed him to continue depositing and playing on their platform despite no longer operating legally in Germany. He had not used a VPN to bypass restrictions and had lost approximately $250, which he was requesting to be refunded. We explained to the player that while we understood his concerns, we could only intervene when a casino refused to pay out legitimate winnings due to the player being from a restricted country. We lacked the authority to compel a casino to obtain a license for a specific country. Despite the player's continued insistence, we were unable to assist in recovering his losses. Consequently, the complaint was rejected.

The player from Slovenia and her boyfriend both had accounts with Rollbit. Despite having provided valid identification and completed KYC procedures, Rollbit had accused them of attempting to circumvent trading limits, and refused to release their funds. The player and her boyfriend shared the same IP address, device, and e-wallet, which complicated the casino's ability to distinguish between two separate users. The complaint was eventually rejected due to a lack of response from the player.

The player from Serbia, who had been facing an account ban from a casino where she had approximately $7k USD, had her issue resolved. The casino had accused her of violating rules by creating multiple accounts, a claim she denied. She had provided evidence to support her claim that all transactions and bets were made by her. Despite the initial refusal from the casino to communicate further, the player's persistent efforts had led to the return of her money. Consequently, we had marked the complaint as 'resolved'.

The player from Croatia had reported that his account had been restricted from withdrawals despite having successfully withdrawn in the past. He had confirmed that his account was verified and he had not used any bonuses. The Complaints Team had attempted to contact the casino for clarification but received no response. Consequently, the complaint had been marked as 'unresolved', which could have negatively affected the casino's rating. The player had been advised to file a complaint with the gaming authority that regulates the casino, Gaming Curacao, as a possible way to retrieve his winnings.

The player from the UK with a self-admitted gambling addiction set up an account for online sports betting. He is disputing the loss of £13011.90, arguing that the casino has failed to sufficiently restrict access, as it knowingly allowed bets from a person in a restricted area. We closed the complaint becasue the player stopped responding.

The player from Panama reported an issue where her account, holding approximately $10,000, was closed without evident reason. This occurred despite supplying all requested information, undergoing a successful KYC verification, and providing proof of origin for her deposited funds. The complaint was rejected because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Japan requested a withdrawal two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. The casino was waiting for the review by the provider. After it came back positive, the winnings were paid out successfully.

The player from Japan 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's withdrawal is delayed for over a month. Despite our attempts to contact the casino, there's been no response so the complaint remains unresolved. Even though we assumed that the issue had been resolved, without a confirmation from the player, we were forced to reject this complaint.

The player from Sweden has been trying to close the account due to a gambling problem. Unfortunately, all the enquiries were ignored. We ended up closing the complaint as ‘unresolved’ because the casino failed to reply.