Rollino Casino Review

The player from Austria had sent multiple requests to Rollino Casino to close their account, but it remained active. The player expressed dissatisfaction with the casino and requested account closure due to a negative experience. Despite following the recommended procedures, the player's requests were ignored by the casino. Finally, the account was closed without notification. The issue was marked as resolved.

The player from Peru had his account at Rollino Casino closed and his balance confiscated due to alleged bonus manipulation, despite his claims of not using any bonuses. The casino stated that the decision was final and that the account could not be reopened. The Complaints Team reviewed the evidence provided by the casino, which indicated that the player had abused in-game features, leading to the rejection of the complaint. Consequently, the player was advised to avoid similar strategies in the future.

The player from Greece activated a 150% bonus code, but the bonus was not credited after he made a deposit. He played with the deposited money and believed that the bonus should still be credited. We explained that once the deposit money is played, it is often technically impossible to credit the bonus. Therefore, the complaint was closed without further action.

The player from Germany faced multiple issues with the casino, including a €500 maximum withdrawal limit, lack of response from the support and finance departments for 48 hours, and no resolution despite successful verification. He only used real money and followed all the rules. The player updated that the amount in dispute was now €2000 and expressed frustration with the casino's practices. Despite initial communication from the casino requesting bank details, the player decided to abandon the complaint, citing the casino's poor customer service and restrictive withdrawal limits. Due to the player's lack of response, we were unable to proceed with further investigation and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Argentina had his casino account closed after he had made several deposits and successfully made two maximum withdrawals. The casino stated that his account was closed due to violations of arbitrage and value betting rules. The player was unsure of the exact number of bets he had placed in sports betting and casino/live casino, but he believed he had made more sports bets than casino bets. Upon investigation, we had received evidence from the casino indicating suspicious activity in the sportsbook associated with the bets the player had placed. As the issue pertained solely to sports betting, and we lacked the necessary expertise in this area, we were unable to assist the player and had to reject his complaint. We advised the player to submit a sports betting-related complaint on specific recommended websites.

The player from Germany had deposited €50 and received a €25 bonus, which he had successfully wagered and increased his balance to €2600. He then attempted to withdraw €1000, but was informed of a maximum withdrawal limit of €125, as per the casino's bonus terms. This resulted in the casino deducting €875 from his account. The player compared his case to a similar one where the casino had agreed to pay out the full amount after intervention. However, after reviewing the case, we found that the casino had acted within its Terms and Conditions, as the player's winnings were capped only once, not multiple times. Therefore, the complaint was rejected.

The player from Poland had participated in a promotion at a casino, won almost PLN 20,000, but only received PLN 650. We had reviewed the Bonus Terms and Conditions and found a clause that limited the maximum cashout amount to 5 times the bonus granted. Despite extending the response time, the player had failed to respond, leaving us unable to further investigate. Consequently, the complaint was rejected due to the player's non-responsiveness and the casino's adherence to their stated terms.

The player from the UK had deposited 500€ at Rollino casino, won money, and had tried to make a max withdrawal of 500€. The casino had cancelled the request, stating the player hadn't met the stake requirement. After further gameplay, the stake count had remained inconsistently low. The player had also expressed frustration at the max withdrawal limit of 500€. After our intervention, the player had managed to withdraw 1000€ in two transactions and requested the remaining 223€. Eventually, the player confirmed the complete withdrawal of her balance. The issue had been successfully resolved, and the complaint was marked as 'resolved'.

The player from Canada, who had had issues with the casino blocking her account and confiscating $4,500 in winnings due to alleged terms and conditions violation, confirmed that she had received all her winnings. The casino had blocked her from playing any games, but she had expressed relief that the issue was over. We, the Complaints Team, had appreciated the casino's fair approach and their efforts to ensure the winnings were paid out as quickly as possible. We had then marked this complaint as 'resolved'.

The player from the United Kingdom, who admitted to a gambling addiction, had requested the closure of their account via email and live chat about 4 days prior. Despite their request, the account had remained open which had caused the player to lose money. We had asked the player to provide evidence of their self-exclusion request, but they failed to respond to our messages. Consequently, we had to reject the complaint due to lack of evidence. However, the casino confirmed that the player's account had been closed in accordance with their terms and conditions.

The player from Sweden had successfully completed initial account verification, but had encountered difficulties when asked to provide non-digital proof of residence. This issue had arisen due to the predominantly digital nature of utility bills and invoices in Sweden. Despite the player's numerous attempts to reach the casino via email and live chat, he had received no response. We had intervened to mediate the situation, but the player failed to respond to our inquiries. As a result, we were unable to investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Italy had tried to close his account due to a self-identified gambling issue, but hadn't received a response from the casino. After he contacted the Complaints Team, they had advised him to send another email to the casino regarding his self-exclusion request. The casino had responded by confirming that his account would remain open until the completion of KYC verification and withdrawal of his winnings. The casino had also set a bet limit on his account as a precautionary measure. After some correspondence regarding withdrawal processes and limits, the player had confirmed receiving his winnings and the closure of his account. The Complaints Team then marked the complaint as resolved.

The player from Ontario had submitted a withdrawal request less than two weeks prior to contacting us. Winnings hadn't been obtained up to that day. The delay had been due to a technical issue that caused the initial transaction to expire. After the player's KYC verification was successfully completed, the casino asked him to repeat the withdrawal request. The casino confirmed that the withdrawal of Can$300 was successfully completed. The player confirmed that the issue had been resolved.

The player from the United Kingdom had requested a withdrawal prior to submitting his complaint. Unfortunately, his winnings hadn't been received yet. The player's issue had been with the casino imposing unfair withdrawal requirements and restrictions, which prevented him from submitting his next withdrawal request. The casino eventually acknowledged that this was a mistake and promised to process the player's withdrawal. The player also had concerns about the casino's withdrawal limits, which he felt were unfair and made withdrawing winnings difficult. However, the Complaints Team explained that many online casinos had withdrawal limits and they didn't consider it a problem if they weren't too low and if the casinos followed these limits. The player confirmed that all his withdrawals had now been processed and the issue was resolved successfully.

A player from the UK successfully completed a casino's verification process, but was then only offered Bitcoin as a withdrawal option. Despite not using this cryptocurrency and this not being specified in the T&Cs, the casino insists that she must use it to receive her winnings of £250.

The player from Germany had reported a problem after a game error which resulted in him losing his winnings of 149 Euros earned from free spins. Despite the delay, he had not received the funds. We had requested additional information from the player to investigate the matter further. However, due to the lack of response from the player, we were unable to proceed with the investigation and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Greece had difficulties withdrawing a total of €10,000 from a casino after completing the wager on his bonus. After withdrawing €500, the casino closed his account alleging multiple accounts, the player admitted to using a VPN. We contacted the casino and asked for supporting evidence. The casino provided evidence showing that the player had multiple accounts, which was a violation of the casino's terms and conditions. Consequently, we found the casino's actions to be justified and rejected the player's complaint.

The player from Brazil had experienced difficulties during account verification at an online casino. Despite having submitted all required documents, his proof of address, a bank statement, was not accepted. The player had been directed to contact the casino via email, but received no response. Subsequently, his account had been deactivated before he could resolve the issue. The casino had claimed that the player submitted forged documents, which the player vehemently denied. After reviewing the evidence provided by the casino, we found the documents to have been non-genuine. With no counterarguments from the player, we closed the complaint as unjustified.

The player from Germany had wagered a bonus and had accumulated a balance of 9500 euros. He had requested a withdrawal of 500 euros, leaving a balance of 9000 euros. However, upon his return from vacation, he discovered only 322.50 euros in his account. The casino had claimed that according to their bonus rules, winnings were capped at 5 times the bonus amount, which in his case was 210 euros. The player had disputed this, arguing that he had played with real money, not bonus funds. We had concluded that the player had misunderstood the bonus terms and that the casino had acted within its rights to cap the winnings. The complaint was consequently rejected.

The player from Germany had experienced a delay in the withdrawal process of his winnings from an online casino. Initially, the player had an outstanding withdrawal of €2500, with €1500 already having been transferred. The casino had confirmed that the pending withdrawals were processed within 48 hours and were awaiting a game provider check, as per their terms and conditions. The player later reported that an additional €3000 was ready for payment. The casino responded that out of the initial €2500 withdrawal, €2000 had been received by the player. After the player asked us to close the complaint, the complaint was closed accordingly.

The player from Germany had experienced a problem with a withdrawal limit of 500 Euros at the casino, despite having submitted over 12 documents. The player had requested a payout of over 2,000 Euros, with about 1,600 to 1,700 Euros remaining in the account. The casino had responded that the delay was due to the player sending the documents to the wrong email address. After the player had sent the documents to the correct address, the casino verified them and advised the player to attempt the withdrawal again. The player had confirmed that the issue was resolved and requested for the case to be closed. We had closed the complaint as 'resolved'.

The player from Greece had issues with the wagering requirements of a bonus they claimed at an online casino. They reported that the casino was not counting their bets towards the completion of these requirements. After an investigation, the casino acknowledged a technical error and recalculated the player's balance, making it fully withdrawable. However, the player encountered another problem with their KYC verification process, where their proof of residence was initially rejected. Upon resubmission, the casino accepted the document and the player was able to withdraw their winnings. The player confirmed the resolution of their complaint.

A player from Germany, despite having a verified profile and submitting all requested documents, has their withdrawal requests cancelled repeatedly. The player is worried the casino is intentionally delaying his payout. The complaint was resolved as the player got paid out.

The player from Greece had a balance of 313 euros, and when he cancelled a bonus, all funds were removed, not just the bonus amount. Eventually, the casino had agreed to credit back the cancelled bonus to the user's account as a compromise. The user had confirmed that he successfully reactivated the bonus and considered the issue resolved.

The player from Spain had requested a withdrawal but despite three days of waiting, the money had not been deposited to their account. Communication with the casino remained unhelpful, with the casino always stating that the withdrawal was still processing. The casino had requested additional verification in the form of a card photo, which the player initially refused to provide citing privacy concerns. However, after eventually complying with the request, the casino confirmed receipt of the necessary information and approved the withdrawal. The player had since confirmed receipt of her winnings, and the issue was now resolved.

The player from Portugal had deposited €25 and received a 200% bonus. After winning and trying to withdraw, they discovered that the entire account balance was classified as bonus money. The player had questioned why the deposited funds were now labeled as a bonus. In response, we had explained that the casino's bonus terms and conditions stipulate that deposited funds and bonus amounts merge into a single balance once a bonus is activated by a player. We also informed the player that the withdrawal of winnings is typically restricted until the bonus wagering requirements are fulfilled. Despite our efforts to resolve the issue, the player did not respond to our messages, and we were forced to reject the complaint.

The player from Ontario is facing a dispute over her winnings. After completing the wagering requirements of a deposit bonus, she continued playing without an active bonus and won $1400, which was then voided by the casino. She claims that the winnings should not have been affected as there was no active bonus at the time. The complaint was resolved as the casino refunded the money to the player.

The player from Hungary had made several deposits on Rollino Casino and had won approximately 800 euros. The casino had asked the player to wager 10x before withdrawing, despite the Terms & Conditions indicating a 2% commission for wagering below 10x. The player's withdrawal balance was shown as zero. After reviewing the T&Cs and communicating with the casino, it was confirmed that the 2% fee had been a technical error and was being removed. However, the casino had agreed to honor the 2% fee for affected users until the T&Cs were updated. The player's account had shown that he had already met the wagering requirement and had two pending withdrawals totaling 1,052 euros. The complaint had been left open until the player could confirm the successful withdrawal, but was ultimately rejected due to lack of response from the player.

A player from Slovenia is concerned about certain casino rules regarding bonuses. After playing with a bonus and free spins, her winnings were limited based on the casino's explanation of bonus rules, which the player finds uncommon and unfair. The complaint was rejected as the player got paid out by the casino according to their bonus policy.

The player from Canada had won 600 CAD after making several deposits, but was unable to withdraw his winnings after his account had been closed by the casino due to alleged gambling addiction. The player had denied having any gambling addiction and claimed he had been invited by the casino to play. The casino had explained that the player's account was closed in accordance with CEG regulation due to previous reports of gambling addiction on other brands operated by their license holder, Altacore N.V. However, the casino had assured the player that his balance of 600 CAD would be processed and paid out to him. After some delay and communication issues, the casino had confirmed the transaction had been processed. The player later confirmed receipt of his winnings. Consequently, we had closed the complaint as 'resolved'.

The player from Germany had requested a withdrawal prior to submitting this complaint. Unfortunately, her winnings hadn't been received yet. The casino responded that the withdrawal requests were executed and received on her end. The player confirmed that the issue was resolved after a long wait.

The player from New Zealand had won $4232 NZD but, the winnings were significantly reduced. The Complaints Team had reviewed the case and found that the reduction was in accordance with the casino's bonus terms and conditions, which limited the maximum withdrawal amount from no deposit bonuses. Despite the player's dissatisfaction, the team concluded that the casino had acted within its stated policies and there was no further action that could be taken. The complaint had been closed.

The player from Sweden had claimed to have won a significant amount during a free spin bonus in a game at Rollino Casino. However, due to a poor internet connection, the game session had abruptly ended. When the player had logged back into the account, the win was not registered and didn't appear in the game history. We had contacted the casino and conducted a comprehensive investigation into the issue. Unfortunately, no evidence was found to support the player's claim of participating in the game in question. The casino had reported a technical malfunction on customer profiles due to a recent platform update. Consequently, this complaint had been rejected due to lack of supporting evidence.

The player from Greece had deposited 143€ to Rollino casino via Neteller. The deposit had been confirmed by Neteller but didn't appear in the player's casino account balance. Despite the player providing evidence of the transaction, the casino was still investigating the issue at that time. However, the casino later confirmed that the deposit had been successfully credited to the player's game balance. The player verified that the problem had been resolved. We then marked this complaint as 'resolved' in our system.

The player from Japan had his account closed by the casino on grounds of employing a low-risk strategy while using a bonus. He does not believe he violated any explicit rules mentioned in the Terms of Use and feels the casino's decision is arbitrary.

The player from Greece validated his account and met the wagering requirements at Rollino Casino. Despite submitting all required documents three weeks ago, his account has not been verified. He sent several emails to the finance department but has not received a response. We were forced to reject this complaint as the player played down his active balance and decided to have the account blocked.

The player from Germany had experienced issues with Rollino Casino, specifically regarding the withdrawal of his winnings. Initially, the player's withdrawal request of €1000 had been reduced to €93.75 due to the casino's bonus rules. The player then used this amount to win €500, which was again reduced due to the same rules. After a series of exchanges between the player, the casino, and our team, the casino had agreed to reissue the second withdrawal request of €500 as a gesture of goodwill. The player confirmed the receipt of this amount and requested the complaint to be marked as resolved. We had then closed this case.

The player from Sweden has requested a withdrawal of €3000 in three parts and completed all verification. However, the player is unable to access the website to confirm if the withdrawal was successful. The player later confirmed all withdrawals were processed, therefore we closed the complaint as resolved.

The player from Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania had been unable to access the Rollino online casino page. She had also had some funds left in her casino account. We had asked her to try contacting the casino's support, and in response, the casino had informed her that they were making adjustments to their main domain. They had provided an alternative domain for the player to access her account. The player had confirmed that she could access her account via the provided link. We had marked the issue as resolved.

The player from Switzerland had initially been unable to use the promo code in the casino. He had claimed to have signed up through a link on Casino Guru's website. The casino acknowledged that the issue had arisen because the player had not entered the promo code during registration. The casino then manually applied the promo code to the player's account, resolving the issue. The player had expressed satisfaction with this solution. We had marked the complaint as resolved.

A player from Italy requested self-exclusion and account closure via email and chat yet the account remains open. After the attempted self-exclusion, she managed to deposit and lose an additional €1600 and has requested a refund. The casino's response is pending. The complaint was resolved as the player's account got closed within a reasonable time frame.

The player from Egypt, after claiming a no deposit bonus and fulfilling wagering requirements, had their account closed following verification, with the casino citing fraudulent activities related to verification. After gathering information, we were forced to reject the player's complaint.

The player from Brazil has requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. The payment hasn’t been processed yet. The player later informed us that he received his winnings, so we could close this complaint as resolved.

The player from Brazil can't get his documents accepted by the casino. After the last document submission, the casino blocked the option to upload his documents and advised the player to contact support. We closed the complaint becasue the player didn't reply to our messages and questions.

The player from Canada sought multiple withdrawals amounting to $3,900 but found all these requests cancelled without his initiation. Initially assured by customer service, the player was later informed by the casino that $3,750 had been deducted from his account, supposedly because the winnings were from free spins. After a closer examination, we ended up rejecting this complaint as unjustified.

A player from Brazil is having issues with their initial deposit using Pix. The bank confirmed the transactions, but the casino did not credit the amount to the player's account despite presenting proof of transaction.

The player from Austria is having trouble with the verification process as the casino does not accept their valid passport, and the website does not allow for more documents to be uploaded. Player’s complaint has been resolved successfully.

The Australian player deposited $300 in 3 separate installments to Rollino casino but the funds have not been reflected in the account, despite confirmation of a successful transaction by a payment gateway. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Ontario attempted to close her account due to gambling addiction, but after multiple emails and requests for personal information, the account remained problematic. Despite finally closing the account, it was reopened, leading the player to deposit additional money despite her addiction. She sought resolution and closure of the account. The issue was resolved as the account was eventually blocked, and the player was advised to reach out if it was reopened in the future.

The player from Sweden had repeatedly requested the casino to close their account, but the requests were ignored. The casino continued to ask for reasons and offered bonuses instead of closing the account. The player expressed distress and decided to block the casino from contact. The player eventually managed to block the website and therefore we marked the issue as resolved.

The player from Germany had requested a permanent account closure with PalmSlots Casino due to a gambling problem. Despite this, the casino had reopened her account, in which she subsequently lost €4,999.60. The player had asked for a full refund from the casino but had not received a response. After mediation, the casino agreed to refund the disputed amount as a gesture of goodwill and confirmed that the account would be permanently excluded. The player acknowledged receiving the refund and expressed gratitude for the resolution.

The player from Finland had experienced a delayed €5000 withdrawal from Palm Slots casino despite having a verified account. He had reported dissatisfaction with generic chat responses and had expressed concerns about the casino's legitimacy. The winnings had been accumulated from a VIP bonus, and the account had been verified earlier in 2022. The Complaints Team had advised the player to wait the recommended 14 days for the payout to be processed. The player later confirmed that the issue had been resolved.

The player from Germany had deposited €100 into the Palmslot casino using online banking, but the funds were not credited to his casino account despite the transaction being marked as 'pending'. The player had contacted the casino's support chat three times, but only received advice to wait and had not received any email confirmation from the casino. The player had threatened to file a criminal complaint for fraud against the casino's payment provider, NEW ERA CYPRUS LIMITED. Despite having VIP status at the casino, he had received no assistance from his personal VIP manager. We had advised the player to forward the payment confirmation from their provider to the casino and wait for up to a month for the missing deposit to be credited. The player later confirmed that the issue had been resolved and the money was credited to his casino account.

The player from Quebec had been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, her payout hadn't been received yet. The Complaints Team had advised her that it was common for withdrawals to take some time to process, possibly due to unfinished KYC verification or a high volume of withdrawal requests. They had suggested she wait at least 14 days after requesting the withdrawal before submitting a complaint. However, the issue had been resolved successfully, and the player confirmed receipt of her winnings. The complaint was subsequently marked as 'resolved' by the Complaints Team.

The player from Estonia had been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, her payout hadn't been received yet. She reported that her account was fully verified and there were conflicting responses from the casino's live chat and her account manager regarding the delay. After our team's intervention, she confirmed that she had received her withdrawal. We had subsequently marked the complaint as resolved.

The player from Slovenia has struggled with a cashout delay of 8 days. The casino responds with generic messages, indicating high financial traffic. The player later informed us that he received his winnings, so this complaint was closed as resolved.

The player from Estonia requested a withdrawal of 3000 euros and submitted the required KYC documents. Despite contacting the casino support and KYC team, a week has passed without any progress or response to her withdrawal request. The player is growing increasingly concerned and seeks advice on the next steps. The complaint was resolved as the player got paid out.

The player from Austria has requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. The player later confirmed that he received his winnings, so the complaint could be closed as resolved.

The player from Austria is experiencing a complex verification process in order to withdraw their 5000 Euro winnings. The casino keeps asking for additional documents beyond the usual requirements. The complaint was resolved as the player received his money.

An Austrian player deposited 10 Euros through express transfer. However, the balance was not displayed and despite numerous inquires, she received no response from the casino. The player confirmed the deposit was credited on 6th day after making the transfer.

The player from Germany won 700 euros after depositing 50 euros and fulfilling bonus conditions. However, despite verification and observing betting rules, the casino accused the player of betting manipulation and canceled the winnings. The player later confirmed that the funds were returned after the casino investigated the case again.

The player from Poland successfully won and tried to withdraw €2.5k from Palmslots Casino. Despite sending all requested KYC documents and following up multiple times, the player has not received a response. The player confirmed the issue was resolved.

The player from Finland deposited 20 euros and received free spins. After other deposits and wins of around 2000 euros could not be withdrawn, the winnings suddenly dropped to about 50 euros. Casino cited unfinished free spins and subsequent deposits being treated as bonus money as the reason. We ended up closing the case as resolved since the casino decided to reinstate the player's winnings that had been successfully withdrawn to the player's bank afterwards.

The player from British Columbia has been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, their payout hasn’t been received yet. The player later confirmed that the withdrawal was processed successfully, therefore we marked this complaint as resolved.

The player from Spain has been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, their payout hasn’t been received yet. The player later confirmed that the withdrawal was processed successfully, therefore we marked this complaint as resolved.

The player from South Africa has requested a withdrawal prior to submitting this complaint. Unfortunately, their winnings haven’t been received yet. The player later confirmed that the withdrawal was processed successfully, therefore we marked this complaint as resolved.

The player from Germany had deposited 3050 euros at Jettbet Casino and won over 7740 euros but had requested a withdrawal of only 500 euros. After completing the document verification, his account was blocked with a message citing gambling addiction, which he denied and stated he had never requested the closure. The issue was resolved when the casino apologized, reopened the account, and processed the initial payment of 500 euros. The player was then able to withdraw the remaining winnings in increments of 500 euros, with a total of 3800 euros still outstanding. The complaint was closed as resolved, with the option to reopen it if further issues arose.

The player from Greece had completed the bonus wagering requirements and submitted documents to verify his account, but faced difficulties withdrawing his winnings. Despite requesting withdrawals through different methods and providing proof of deposit, the casino continued to ask for unnecessary personal information and had not processed his withdrawal. The issue was resolved after multiple attempts to verify the withdrawal account, and his winnings were successfully transferred to his bank account. The complaint was marked as 'resolved' by the Complaints Team.

The player from Nova Scotia had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting their complaint. They had not received their money yet. The issue was resolved after the player's account verification and communication with the casino, which confirmed that the withdrawal had not been canceled on their end. The resolution indicated that the player was now able to access their winnings.