Roobet Casino Review

The player from Austria contacted Roobet about a gambling addiction, which led to the immediate suspension of his account. Consequently, he could not access his rewards, including substantial cashback in the Roobet Vault, despite multiple attempts to reach support since July 8th. We reviewed the casino's responsible gambling policies and confirmed that the account was blocked in accordance with these policies to prevent further harm. Rewards and bonuses were not considered real money until wagered. The complaint was closed with advice to seek professional help and use self-exclusion tools.

The player from Belgium, a minor at 16, lost around 3,000 euros gambling on Roobet using fake details. The casino had allowed deposits without requesting an ID, but when informed of the player's minor status and request for a refund, the account was blocked and the request was denied. We explained that the casino's terms and conditions required players to provide accurate information, including their age, and that the casino typically verified identities at the withdrawal stage. The complaint was rejected due to the player's breach of terms by providing false information.

The player from Italy had their Roobet account closed despite submitting identification documents and was unable to claim expected bonuses and rakeback. We explained that casinos have the right to close accounts if they suspect irregularities or for no reason at all. Despite extending the timer for a response, the player failed to provide additional information, leading to the rejection of the complaint due to a lack of further communication.

The player from Mexico, who had an account since 2021, could not withdraw winnings due to a request for proof of ownership for all deposit wallets, including ones no longer accessible. Despite completing KYC verification, support had stopped responding to his queries. The issue was resolved by rejecting the complaint because the account had been initially registered with a friend's name, violating the casino's policy that required accounts to be registered with accurate personal information.

The player from India deposited $100 via UPI to Roobet, but the money was debited from his bank account and not credited to his Roobet account. The casino claimed the operator didn't receive the money, and the player was seeking a refund. We requested additional information and screenshots from the player, but he did not respond. Consequently, the complaint was rejected due to a lack of cooperation from the player.

The player from Canada had their account closed on Roobet due to accusations of owning a second account, which they denied. Despite providing all requested verification documents, the account remained closed. The player requested a review and reinstatement of their account. After investigation, it was determined that the player had breached the casino's terms and conditions by having multiple accounts, altering personal information, and attempting to engage in fraudulent activities. Consequently, the complaint was closed as unjustified.

The player from Mexico had made a deposit via bank transfer to his Roobet account, but the funds had not been credited despite being deducted from his bank account. After waiting for four days for a response from the casino's payment team and sending numerous emails and messages, the player's issue had finally been resolved. The payment provider had refunded the money back to the player's bank account. The player had expressed dissatisfaction with the casino's handling of the situation, but had thanked both the casino and the Complaints Team for their assistance. The Complaints Team had marked the issue as 'resolved'.

The player from Quebec had requested account closure due to a gambling addiction but had already lost over $4000. The player also claimed that the platform allowed illegal gambling, specifically mentioning the case of a Youtuber from the United States who used a VPN to bypass security. The player planned to file a complaint about this matter, and alleged the game was rigged. We had clarified the difference between account closure and self-exclusion to the player and had asked for the self-exclusion request to be sent to the casino for review. Upon review, we found that the casino had acted within the stipulated time frame of 48-72 hours to process the self-exclusion request. The complaint was left unresolved as the player failed to respond to our follow-up messages.

The player from Mexico had reported irregularities with Roobet's Dice game, noting discrepancies in bet verification and missing betting history despite having placed over 500,000 bets and wagering over $1,000,000. He had claimed that these irregularities resulted in a financial loss of $6,266. The casino had acknowledged the issue and credited his account with $200, but the player had insisted this did not cover his total losses. After reviewing all the evidence and information provided, we had concluded that the player was not entitled to further compensation. The issue with bet verification was due to a recording error and did not indicate unfairness in the game. The case had been closed as 'rejected'.

The player from Romania had self-excluded from the casino due to a gambling problem but continued to receive promotional materials from the casino. The Complaints Team had reached out to the player for further information but did not receive a response. As a result, we were unable to investigate the issue further and had to reject the complaint due to lack of communication from the player.

The player from India reported that his casino account had been unexpectedly closed without any reason provided. He had deposited INR 80,000 and was unable to withdraw or contact the casino after the account closure. The casino claimed the account was closed due to fraudulent activity and provided evidence of communication with the player. Despite multiple requests for clarification and additional information, the player had failed to respond adequately. Consequently, the complaint was rejected due to insufficient information from the player after he stopped responding completely.

The player from India was struggling with depositing; the money he had deposited had not been refunded to his bank or credited to his casino for over seven days. We had advised the player to contact his payment provider for an investigation and recommended him not to deposit any more funds until the issue was resolved. However, the complaint had to be rejected due to the lack of response from the player, thus hindering further investigation or potential solutions to address the issue.

The player from India had been unable to withdraw his winnings from Roobet Casino after making his first deposit. Despite having been verified up to level 4, the withdrawal function had remained disabled. The player had claimed he had not used any bonus and his winnings were real. He had last communicated with the casino about his withdrawal issue, but had only received a response that the issue had been escalated. We had asked the player for further proof of his verified account and communication with the casino, but he did not respond. As a result, we had been unable to investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from the United States had suspected unscrupulous practices from the casino related to the fairness of slots and bonus deals. The player was also dealing with a gambling addiction, which the casino was aware of. We had asked the player for more details about when he had requested self-exclusion and if he had made any deposits after notifying the casino of his gambling issues. However, the player did not respond to our queries. As a result, we were unable to investigate further and had to reject the complaint due to lack of information.

The US-based player had discovered that his minor cousin had been using his financial details to gamble on Roobet for a year. Despite having reached out to the casino numerous times, he had received no response. The player had explained that his cousin had access to his debit card and had been able to use it undetected due to the player's wealth and multiple bank accounts. However, when the casino had requested the cousin's passport for verification, the cousin's mother had refused, citing security concerns. We had advised the player to report the issue to the police, as it involved underage gambling and a substantial amount of money, and was beyond our capacity to resolve.

The player complained about their account being locked after they'd submitted their documents for KYC. They had previously requested to be excluded from the casino but were still able to start playing again witihout any identity verification, and requested that the money on their locked account be returned to them. The casino did not respond to the complaint, and it is currently marked unresolved.

The player complained about their account being closed immediately after requesting a withdrawal. The casino didn't offer any explanation, and the funds had been on hold for over two months. The casino responded and requested player's information, but there were no further updates, and it is unclear whether the player received their money. The complaint is marked as unresolved.

The player from Norway had her casino account locked after she won a large amount, despite having provided verification that she was of legal age. She had sent multiple emails but received no response. It was revealed that the player's son had initially tried to verify the account using his details, which led to complications. The Complaints Team had explained that this breach of protocol had made it impossible for them to assist. They had advised the player to always provide accurate personal information and to refrain from seeking assistance in setting up online casino accounts to avoid such issues in the future. Consequently, the complaint was rejected.

The player from Romania, who had been a VIP with over $2 million wagered, had his casino account abruptly closed without any warning. As a result, he was unable to access his account and his benefits. Contact with the casino had not been successful. The player claimed that he was due to receive a bonus of 150 free spins, which he didn't receive due to the account closure. The casino had justified the account closure due to the player's excessive requests for bonuses and potential signs of gambling problems. Despite the player's insistence, we had concluded that the casino had acted appropriately and responsibly in this situation. The player's complaint had been rejected.

The player from the United Kingdom, a self-confessed gambling addict, had self-excluded from Roobet Casino. Despite this, the casino sent a promotional email encouraging him to deposit, resulting in the player creating a new account. Player’s complaint has been resolved successfully.

The player from New Zealand won 3.6 million USD on Roobet.com's 'Crash' game. The casino accused the player of cheating, requested additional verification, and subsequently closed the account. The player insists that cheating is impossible due to the game's security measures.

The player from the Czech Republic made a deposit of $150 because he received a promotional email saying he would receive $150 worth of free spins. However, the casino credited him only $30 in spins admitting they made a mistake. Since the player used the $30 free spins, won money and successfully withdrew, he essentially accepted the casino's terms and the conditions and was not eligible for any additional spins. Therefore, we rejected the complaint.

The player from Kuwait has his account blocked in the casino due to previous gambling issues. We couldn't comply with the player's request to ask the casino to reopen his account, and we were forced to close the complaint as unjustified.

The player from Germany had his account closed due to gambling problem. Afterwards, he was able to open a new account and deposit funds.The case was successfully resolved. The player asked us to set all the messages as private, and we respected his request.

The player from Austria asked for self-exclusion, but it was not activated immediately. Unfortunately, the player didn't send the request to the correct email address. Since this was not the casino's mistake and his account was later closed based on another request, we ended up rejecting the complaint.

The player from Mongolia is experiencing difficulties withdrawing his winnings after he accessed the casino account from his brother's computer. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Canada had the withdrawal denied and the account blocked due to an accusation of using the VPN. The casino responded and stated that even though the player breached the terms and conditions, they would return their balance to them as a gesture of goodwill. Consequently, the complaint was resolved.

The player from Spain noticed that a withdrawal request appeared in their account. The withdrawal has not been requested by the player and they are sure that no one else accessed their account. Since it would be close to impossible to prove who is responsible for this situation and who did this, we were forced to reject the complaint.

The player's account got closed 3 months ago without any explanation 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 the United Kingdom had the account blocked right after placing a deposit. The reason was that he had signed up from a restricted region. The player requested a refund of the deposited amount, which was honored, according to the information provided by the casino team. 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 living in France was accused of playing from a restricted country. The casino blocked his account and confiscated his balance. As a gesture of goodwill the casino offered to give the player their last deposit back. After deeper investigation and reviewing the available evidence, this option seemed to be a good compromise. Eventually, the player agreed on the refund of his last deposit. The issue was successfully resolved.

The player from the United Kingdom is experiencing difficulties withdrawing winnings since his country became a restricted jurisdiction. The casino initially stated that they were not in a position to refund the player as they had broken the terms and conditions by registering from a restricted country. After some time, the casino then stated that they had returned the player's balance to them. The player did not consider this to be a satisfactory resolution and requested that all of their deposits be returned to them. As the player had played with these deposits of their own volition and no funds were now confiscated, we did not consider there to be sufficient reason for the deposits to be returned to the player and so the complaint was ultimately rejected.

The player from Quebec has requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. Their money hasn’t been received yet. The player later confirmed that he was able to withdraw his winnings, therefore we marked this complaint as resolved.

The player from California had their account blocked and balance voided as they were a resident of the United States, which was one of the countries listed as restricted in the casino's Terms and Conditions. Furthermore, there were allegations that the player had used a VPN to mask their location and that they had filled out their player profile incorrectly, as they had indicated an incorrect country as their country of residence in their player profile. The player claims they had never used a VPN and that they had filled out Germany as their country of residence because they were staying in the country at the time of registration. However, the nature of the player's stay in Germany, and the answer to the question of whether the player would be able to pass through the verification process, are not known. We rejected the case because the player stopped responding to our messages and questions.

The player from Greece had the withdrawal denied due to the use of a VPN and entering incorrect personal information during the registration process. After gathering all the necessary information, we rejected the complaint as 'Unjustified' on the grounds of the player's gaming account being unverifiable.

The player from Mexico had his account blocked without further explanation. The player allegedly breached the casino's Terms and Conditions. Later, the casino decided to pay the player's balance out, which was confirmed by the player. The complaint is resolved.

The player from Spain had his account blocked due to a breach of the casino's Terms and Conditions (VPN usage). The player confirmed that the casino paid him the remaining balance from his casino account. The complaint is resolved.

The player complained about issues he had while playing with cryptocurrencies. At the beginning, he made deposits with cryptocurrencies but the transacions were not credited to his casino account. In the end, he said the casino realised this error and credited him some of the funds. However, the player said that once he started to make withdrawals, the casino stopped approving his transactions. There was no reaction from the casino.

The player 'BABOTHING' had their account blocked for playing from a restricted country. The player argued this as they had already had their address verified and were allowed to continue playing. The Mediator asked the casino to send them more evidence via email, and there was no further response.

The player 'SWALKE52' believes that their account was hacked and used by someone else to place bets with the player's money. This happened while the player was conversing with the live chat support. The casino responded and stated they saw no need to investigate at the time of the incident, and that account security was the responsibility of the individual player, as per their terms. As the casino would not reconsider its position, the player escalated this complaint to the relevant gambling authority.

The player from Netherlands has previously requested account closure due to a gambling problem. Subsequently, the account got reopened. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player requests his money back from the casino as it should not be allowed to play in his country of residence. The complaint was rejected as it is up to the player's responsibility to check gambling regulations in their own country of residence.

The player from the Netherlands has deposited funds in to his account. Later, the player found out that the casino shouldn’t accept him due to country restriction and he requested his deposits to be returned. Since the player voluntarily lost all his deposits, we were forced to reject this complaint.

The player from Uruguay is requesting a refund in the name of their underage child who has managed to deposit funds into casino account. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Canada had their account blocked without further explanation. The reason of the account block was that the player accessed the casino from restricted territory, since he did not possess any withdrawable balance on the account, we have rejected the complaint.

The player from Argentina had the withdrawal denied due to being accused of multiple violations of the Terms of Service, including usage of VPN and creating multiple accounts. The issue was escalated to the casino's licensing authority, which ruled in favor of the casino. The player's complaint was rejected based on the ruling of the licensing authority.

The player's account got closed and the casino is not respoding to him. After a prolonged examination of this case, the casino managed to substantiate the reasons and necessary evidence of why the player's account was closed. As these actions were strictly in contradiction of the casino's terms and conditions and also fair play, we rejected this complaint as 'unjustified'.

The player from Canada has been accused of opening multiple accounts. Admittedly, some friends have created accounts from his device. The complaint was closed as the casino paid out the player's balance from his casino account.

The player's account has been blocked without further explanation. Later, it became clear that the player's account was closed due to the player's violation of the Terms of Service by playing from a restricted jurisdiction. The player received a refund of their last deposit, however, they were also disputing their accumulated Monthly Rakeback that was forfeited due to the ToS violation. As we considered the decision of the casino to be justified, we rejected the player's complaint as 'unjustified'.

The player from Chile has made multiple deposits but a part of the deposited funds seems to be lost. The casino provided proofs that disproved some of the player's statements, but failed to prove that all disputed deposits were credited to the player's gaming account. The player was advised to contact the licensing authority of the casino. We were later informed that the authority investigated the player's case and ruled in favor of the casino. Based on the decision of the authority, we closed the player's complaint as 'Rejected'.

The player from Japan has experienced a technical glitch while trying to withdraw his active balance. We ended up rejecting the complaint because the problem was most probably caused by the the player's weak internet connection.

The player from Germany has been experiencing difficulties withdrawing his winnings. Subsequently, all the funds were played and lost. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Canada had their account blocked without further explanation. The remaining active balance is still held by the casino. the complaint was rejected as the casino proved account multiplicity of the player.

The player from Netherlands had his account blocked without further explanation. The remaining active balance is still held by the casino. The player failed to respond to our questions and messages and we were forced to reject this complaint.

The player requested his account to be closed, but he is concerned because he was able to access his account anyway. The player didn't ask the casino for self-exclusion directly, therefore we were forced to reject this case.