Roobet Casino Review

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.