Scooby Bet Casino Review

The player from Austria had his account blocked. The casino had promised to refund him within a week, but even after three weeks, the refund hadn't been processed, and the casino did not respond to further inquiries. Despite our efforts to resolve the issue, the casino did not respond to the complaint. Furthermore, the casino ceased operations at the end of February 2024.

The player from Russia had experienced a prolonged account lockout, allegedly due to technical work on the casino's side. Despite two months of waiting and multiple email attempts, the player had received no response. The player claimed that all players were experiencing the same issue, and accused the casino of stealing money. After our attempts to contact the casino were unsuccessful and given that it operated without a valid license, we marked the complaint as 'unresolved'. This could have potentially affected the casino's rating negatively.

The player from Germany had been unable to log into his Scoobybet account since the previous Tuesday and his withdrawal request made on the Sunday before had remained unprocessed. Despite having been verified and receiving a withdrawal in December, he was unable to access his account due to a recurring error message. The casino responded to the issue by stating that there was ongoing work in their backoffice and the player would be notified via email once it was resolved. However, the casino failed to provide a clear timeline for the resolution, leading us to close the complaint as unresolved.

The player from Brazil was unhappy with customer service after not receiving winnings from a bonus despite completing their rollover. The player claimed they were unable to find the terms and conditions of the bonus and that the casino support had been rude and unhelpful when they sought clarification. The casino argued that the player had not deposited any funds, a requirement for claiming the bonus winnings. However, the player's account had been closed before they could make a deposit. The casino failed to provide proof of the bonus rules when it was requested by the complaints team. The complaint had been closed as 'unresolved' due to the casino's lack of cooperation, which negatively affected its rating.

The player from Italy had deposited €35 after losing a bonus, but noticed that his credit was still reflecting a fun bonus. Upon contacting chat support and reporting the anomaly, his winnings had been nullified. The casino confirmed that the player had made several deposits and received no winnings. The player claimed that he had been threatened and blackmailed by the casino, which the casino denied and said they had added more funds to his account to resolve the issue. The player insisted that his winnings had been unjustly nullified. The casino argued that the player had been trying to obtain funds unfairly. The player had requested the publication of the entire support chat for transparency. After reviewing the game history and communication between the player and the casino, we confirmed that the player's real money deposit had indeed been credited as bonus winnings. However, the player's account had been closed with no remaining balance, and thus, no further action was taken.

The player from Spain had an issue with his online casino account, where he was unable to establish deposit limitations due to his self-proclaimed gambling addiction. Despite his requests for self-exclusion, the casino did not promptly process his request, leading to further losses. The casino responded that the player's self-exclusion request was processed within business hours as per their policy. The Complaints Team concluded that while the situation was unfortunate, the casino adhered to its policy, and hence the complaint was rejected. The complaint was later reopened as per the player's request, with the player claiming that he was able to access his account and deposit funds again, despite his self-exclusion. We believed the account should not be reopened. However, the casino argued that it was acceptable because the player did not have a certificate proving he has a real gambling problem. Nevertheless, we maintained that a simple request for lifetime account closure and informing about the gambling problem is sufficient. Since the casino team disagreed, we were compelled to close the case and redirect the player to the authority.