Royspins Casino Review

The player from Spain closed his account due to gambling addiction, but the casino did not return the balance amount and was unresponsive to emails and chat messages. The player reported that his account had been closed with a balance of approximately €130, and despite the casino claiming to have sent the money, he had not received it. The Complaints Team extended the investigation period but ultimately rejected the complaint due to a lack of response from the player. However, the player later confirmed that the money had arrived from the casino, leading to the resolution of the issue.

The player from Brazil requested to permanently block his account, but the casino only offered temporary blocks and lacked responsible gaming options. We advised the player to clearly state the reason and duration for self-exclusion in an email to the casino. The player confirmed that the account was successfully blocked. The complaint was then marked as resolved.

The player from Australia accused RoySpins Casino of misleading RTP rates, unfair cashback terms, and deceptive withdrawal practices. Despite raising concerns, the casino dismissed them, prompting her to demand a full refund of deposits. We requested additional proof from the player, including gaming history, but the player failed to provide it. After reviewing the provided gaming history from the casino, the RTP didn't appear to be out of the ordinary. The complaint was ultimately rejected due to the player's lack of response and insufficient evidence.

The player from Poland had won 35000 euros on Royspins Casino under a duplicate account. Despite having made multiple deposits and withdrawals without issues previously, the casino had informed him that multiple accounts were against their rules, refunded 100 euros, and blocked the account. He argued that because he had been allowed to make deposits and withdrawals in the past, the casino had tacitly accepted his duplicated account. We had informed the player that the casino could not have known it was a duplicate account until the verification process had begun. As the casino had followed their terms and conditions, we were forced to reject the complaint.

The player from Armenia had reported that Royspins Casino confiscated their $800 winnings and blocked their account, falsely claiming rule violation. They had not received a satisfactory response to their official complaint filed on April 19th. The player had affirmed that they registered their account on March 14, 2024, and played live blackjack without any bonuses. The casino had countered that the player used a card-counting strategy and failed to answer basic blackjack questions correctly during a video verification, indicating fraudulent behavior. Despite the player's insistence on their innocence and readiness for additional verification, the casino had provided video evidence that led us to conclude the player did not play independently and lacked basic knowledge of blackjack. Therefore, we had rejected the complaint.

The player from Ukraine had reported that his casino account had been blocked and his $200 deposit was not being returned. He specified that no bonuses were used while playing slot games or making sports bets. The player had registered and verified his account a month before the incident, with a balance of $213 at the time of the account block. Despite efforts to resolve the issue, we determined that the problem was related to sports betting, an area we lacked expertise in at the time. Consequently, we were unable to assist the player further with this complaint.

The player from Belgium had attempted to withdraw €200 but the transaction had been cancelled due to a security check despite prior verification. The withdrawal had been returned to the player's balance and had been mistakenly spent on autospins. The player's request for a refund had been refused. We had concluded that since the funds had been returned to the player's account and subsequently lost during gameplay, the casino typically wouldn't have provided a refund. Hence, the complaint had been rejected.

The player from North Rhine-Westphalia had made a €91 deposit at Roy Spins Casino which had not been credited to his account despite evidence of a successful transaction. The player had reported unsatisfactory responses from the casino. We had advised the player to contact his bank and wait for a month as the investigation of the transaction could take time. The casino had stated they were unable to locate the deposit due to an exceptionally rare instance of a transaction getting stuck between the player's bank and their third-party payment provider. The casino had provided the player with instructions to reclaim his funds through his bank and compensated him for the inconvenience. After almost 3 months, the player confirmed he had received his deposit back. Consequently, the complaint was marked as 'resolved'.

The player from Portugal had reported that his three deposits had not been credited to his casino account, despite having provided proofs. The casino had stated that the transactions were declined and had requested additional documentation from the player for further investigation. However, the player had failed to provide the requested documents and communication had ceased. Due to the player's lack of response, we had to reject the case, but we remained open to assisting if the player decided to resume communication.

The player from Greece was frustrated because the casino management had deactivated all bonuses or loyalty points on his account indefinitely. Despite having more deposits than some of his friends, he had received no clear explanation for this issue. We advised him that casinos reserved the right to restrict or close player accounts, and were not obligated to provide bonuses. The player insisted on understanding the reason behind this action. However, as no actual funds were withheld by the casino, we decided not to pursue the matter further and rejected the complaint.

The player from Switzerland had had trouble inputting additional verification required by the online casino which involved an up-to-date bank statement. He couldn't wait until the end of the month when the bank generated these statements and requested an immediate withdrawal of 2000. Despite this, the casino had completed the payout without the need for the current bank statement. The player's issue was considered resolved, but due to lack of confirmation from the player, we had to reject the complaint.

The player from Portugal, who was struggling with gambling addiction, had requested self-exclusion from RoySpins online casino. Despite this, the casino had allowed him to create multiple accounts and deposit over 3000€. The player had reported losing all his bets and had continued to receive promotional messages from the casino, despite his self-exclusion. After a prolonged discussion with the casino and the complaints team, the casino had initially refunded 3000€ to the player. The player had insisted that the total loss was 6000€, and after further negotiations, the casino had agreed to refund an additional 1000€. The issue had eventually been resolved, and the player had acknowledged the resolution.

The player from Finland had requested account closure due to a gambling addiction in May 2023. Despite repeated requests, the closure had not been implemented until September 26, 2023, during which the player had lost several thousand euros. The player had stated that he had specified his gambling addiction as the reason for account closure in all his requests. The casino had claimed they did not receive the player's email requesting account closure until September 26, 2023. The player had disputed an amount of 1160 euros, but the casino had agreed to refund only 244 euros, which was the total deposit made after August 3, 2023. The player accepted the partial refund due to insufficient evidence, resulting in the case being marked as resolved.

The player from Kazakhstan attempted to withdraw €200 but faced issues due to a supposed chargeback request for a previous deposit of €450, which he had not initiated. Despite having provided extensive evidence from his bank confirming that the transaction was completed and that no chargeback was requested, the casino did not acknowledge his explanations and refused to provide proof of the chargeback. Later, the casino accepted the evidence provided by the player, explained the situation, and removed the restrictions from his account. The issue was marked as resolved by the Complaints Team.

The player from Spain requested a withdrawal that was approved within minutes but did not receive the funds. Despite verifying the account and payment methods, the casino only claimed the withdrawals had been sent without providing any proof. The Complaints Team advised the player to wait 14 days for the withdrawal to process. The player later confirmed that the issue was resolved, and the complaint was closed as 'resolved'.

The player from Spain had requested a withdrawal of 5,268 euros, which was returned to his gaming account without explanation. After he contacted the casino for clarification and sought to recover his funds. The Complaints Team contacted the casino, which provided the necessary details. The player confirmed that the issue was resolved.

The player from Serbia faced account blockage and a request for video verification in English via Skype when attempting to withdraw money. He did not speak English and found this requirement discriminatory. He questioned the legality of using Skype for identity verification. After raising the issue, the player underwent the video verification and subsequently reported that his account was unblocked and the withdrawal was completed successfully. The complaint was marked as resolved.

The player from Germany complained about a delayed withdrawal of 3000 Euros that he had requested on August 21, 2024, which remained unaccounted for despite being marked as "Completed" on the casino's website. He had received insufficient communication regarding the status of his withdrawal and expressed frustration over the lack of transparency and accountability from the support team. The issue was resolved when the support team, particularly an employee named L.K., facilitated the arrival of the funds into his bank account. The player confirmed that the money had been received, leading to the complaint being marked as 'resolved' by the Complaints Team.

The player from Canada had made a withdrawal request more than two weeks ago that hadn't been processed. Despite having made deposits through Interac, he had been asked to provide a bank account number for the withdrawal. His account had already been verified and this had been his first withdrawal attempt at the casino. The player eventually received the funds. The delay was attributed to incorrect email and banking details initially provided by the player. After necessary corrections were made, the withdrawal was processed correctly and the player confirmed receipt of his funds. We then marked the complaint as 'resolved'.

The player from Finland had reported issues with double charges on his deposits at an online casino. He had made two deposits using a Visa card but was charged four times, with each deposit appearing as identical doubles. Despite his request for a full transaction history to clarify the situation, the casino did not respond. The player had demanded a refund for the extra charges. Eventually, the casino refunded the disputed amount. The issue was thus resolved.

The player from Austria had faced difficulties receiving a payout from the casino, despite verification. The casino had blamed the player's bank, but the player had verified this claim with his bank and found it to be untrue. However, the issue had been successfully resolved as the player had confirmed the receipt of his money. Consequently, we had closed the complaint as 'resolved' in our system.

The player from Austria had been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, their payout hadn't been received yet. The player confirmed that they were fully verified on the casino website. After some time, the player informed that two withdrawals had been approved and processed, and they expected the rest of the money to be withdrawn in 1-2 days. Finally, the player confirmed that all their money had arrived, although they were still locked out from sports betting. As a result, we marked the complaint as 'resolved' in our system.

The player from Austria 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 Switzerland is experiencing difficulties withdrawing her funds due to limited availability of payment methods. After our intervention, we were able to help the player to get their winnings. The player confirmed they received the funds in the end. The Player’s complaint has been resolved successfully.

The player from Russia had their account suspended and winnings confiscated due to unsuccessful KYC verification. The player only indicated the name of his region instead of his street and house number when filling out the 'Address' field in their player profile. Our position was that an incorrectly filled out address alone is not a sufficient reason to void winnings. The casino complied with our ruling and initiated additional account verification. The player successfully passed the verification process and received their funds shortly afterwards. The complaint was closed as 'Resolved'.

The player from Germany faced account closure and an inability to withdraw winnings amounting to €1,730 due to a failed video verification claim by Pledoo Casino. He stated that all provided personal details were correct and believed his account was closed without just cause, as he had not engaged in fraudulent activities. He sought clarification and assistance regarding his account status and winnings. The Complaints team engaged in a discussion with the casino team and together they reassessed the whole situation. The issue was resolved when the casino unblocked the player's account, allowing him to withdraw his winnings after a review determined that the withholding was not warranted. Confirmation of the payment was received, and the complaint was marked as resolved.

The player from Switzerland, a long-term customer of Pledoo Casino, faced delays in withdrawing their winnings, despite having undergone multiple verifications in the past. The casino had suspended payouts to conduct a legitimacy check on the bets, claiming it was standard procedure for new clients with large winnings. The player confirmed that the issue was resolved after the casino completed its review and released the funds. The complaint was closed as resolved.

The player from Germany had not received a withdrawal of 1000,-€ which Pledoo Casino claimed they had transferred. The player's bank had rejected the casino's first payment attempt because the casino was not working with a licensed payout partner. The player had provided bank statements as evidence, but the casino had initially refused to acknowledge them. After a series of communications between the player and the casino, the casino confirmed that the withdrawal had been refunded by the player's bank. The funds had been credited back to the player's Pledoo account, and she had been able to initiate a new withdrawal request. Ultimately, the player confirmed that she had received her €1000, resolving the issue.

The player from Switzerland had raised concern over the inability to self-exclude or set limits on his casino account. The casino only offered a 7-day cooling-off period and exhibited poor customer service, failing to respond to emails. The player had already sent an email to the casino requesting self-exclusion, and after the complaint was raised, he received an email confirming the permanent closure of his account and asked for the complaint to be closed. We obliged.

The player from Montenegro claims Pledoo Casino blocked his account and confiscated his winnings of 8,600 Eur after he won, despite him proving his residency. He argues the Casino incorrectly labeled him as a Latvian resident. The casino responded and explained that the player had not provided sufficient documentation to prove their residency in Montenegro. After discussing the case with the casino, it was decided the player should be allowed the opportunity to provide further documents and complete the verification process. Upon doing so, the player received their withdrawal and the complaint was resolved.

The player from Saxony-Anhalt is experiencing issues with two withdrawals of 1000€ each, intended for a Master Card. Despite the account being fully verified and the casino receiving a requested photo of the credit card with a visible CVC, they refuse to process the payment without explanation. The complaint was resolved as the player received his payout.

The player from Greece had their account closed and winnings confiscated after a big win, due to a supposed incorrect surname input during registration. The player insists all provided details were correct, and had previously successfully withdrawn smaller winnings. We closed the complaint as resolved since the casino reconsidered its position and decided to unblock the player's account. This was followed by a successful verification of the player. The player then requested a withdrawal and confirmed receipt of the payment.

The player from Finland requested a withdrawal. The casino noticed a discrepancy between the information in the player's profile and the documents provided for verification. The player explains the discrepancy as a simple typo. The player confirmed the issue was resolved.

The player from Portugal requested their account to be blocked due to losses, but the casino informed them about 250 free spins in a game. After using up the free spins and making a new deposit, the casino unexpectedly blocked the player's account without their confirmation or consent. Player’s complaint has been resolved successfully.

The player from Greece has been struggling for five days to withdraw their money from the casino. The bank rejects their withdrawal request and the customer is advised to use alternative methods such as Neteller and Skrill. Player’s complaint has been resolved successfully.

The player from Bulgaria had his account blocked due to accusations of providing inaccurate personal information. Upon discussing and reviewing the situation with the casino, it was decided that the player gained their winnings fairly and that the missing information could be a genuine mistake. The casino decided to allow the player to verify their address and withdraw their winnings, so the complaint was resolved.

The player from Portugal has made a mistake in his address while registering new account. Unfortunately, the withdrawal is now pending due to incomplete verification. Upon discussing and reviewing the situation with the casino, it was decided that the player gained their winnings fairly and that the missing information could be a genuine mistake. The casino decided to allow the player to verify their address and withdraw their winnings, so the complaint was resolved.

The player from Sweden has submitted a withdrawal request less than two weeks prior to contacting us. Winnings haven’t been obtained up to this day. The player later confirmed that the withdrawal was processed successfully, therefore we marked this complaint as resolved.

The player from Malta requested a withdrawal one week prior to submitting this complaint. It has not been processed yet. The player later confirmed that the withdrawal was processed successfully, therefore we marked this complaint as resolved.

The player from Sweden is experiencing difficulties withdrawing his winnings due to ongoing verification. The player later confirmed that the withdrawal was processed successfully, therefore we marked this complaint as resolved.

The player's request to close his account is ignored for over a month. It seems there was some confusion regarding translation of the player's request and upon re-examining the case the casino decided to return the player's deposit.