Shuffle Casino Review

The player from Norway had withdrawn winnings from a first deposit bonus but only received half of the amount. After waiting over six weeks for the remainder, the casino had requested proof of address, which was approved, but then the account was closed, and the remaining funds were confiscated. The Complaints Team had investigated the situation and concluded that the player had either colluded with others or used multiple accounts to exploit the casino's welcome offer, leading to the rejection of the complaint.

The player from Malta reported significant losses of over $44,000 after being allowed to create multiple accounts, despite having previously self-excluded due to gambling addiction. The player highlighted that Shuffle failed to enforce responsible gambling measures, allowing him to deposit and lose substantial amounts of money. He requested a refund for his losses while expressing a willingness to sign documents waiving future claims if the issue was addressed. The complaint was rejected due to the absence of evidence proving the player's self-exclusion request, which was necessary for further investigation.

The player from Egypt had his account locked by the casino, which accused him of creating multiple accounts. Despite completing and passing the KYC process, his withdrawals remained locked. He wanted to use his account normally and resolve the withdrawal issue. The Complaints Team had attempted to assist by reaching out for further information and extending the timeline for resolution. However, due to a lack of response from the player, the complaint was ultimately rejected.

The player from the Philippines had smooth withdrawals until their recent win was flagged, requiring KYC documentation. Despite promptly submitting the documents, the player's account was suspended due to alleged multiple accounts, which the player denied. The casino clarified that the issue pertained solely to sports betting activities. Consequently, we were unable to assist as our expertise did not cover sports betting disputes, leading to the rejection of the complaint.

The player from Japan had converted their initial deposit bonus into cash and withdrew 3,000 USDT from Shuffle Casino. However, a further withdrawal of 4,740 USDT was blocked due to pending proof of address verification (KYC3), which had not been processed by the casino. The casino later provided evidence that the player had breached the bonus terms and conditions by creating multiple accounts to abuse the First Time Deposit Bonus. We concluded that the casino had acted in accordance with its terms and conditions, leading to the rejection of the complaint.

The player from Argentina had reported being blocked from support after complaining about continuous losses and requesting a bonus. The player had also stated that multiple requests made via email to delete the account had gone unanswered. We had informed the player that we couldn't dictate the rules of bonuses or compel casinos to close players' accounts unless they expressed gambling problems. The player then requested to delete their account on our platform, which we complied with, and closed the complaint.

The player from Brazil was unable to access their casino account, which prevented them from withdrawing their funds. The player's account had been fully verified and they had requested self-exclusion, but not permanently. Despite this, the account was suspended and the player couldn't access their funds. We attempted to gather more information from the player to better understand the situation and help resolve it. However, due to a lack of response from the player, we were unable to proceed with the investigation or provide potential solutions.

The player from Germany had deposited 0.1btc in an online casino and had managed to increase their balance to 0.177btc. However, the casino had blocked the player's withdrawal option, accusing them of having multiple accounts due to similar playing patterns and geographical location with a friend. The player had refuted these allegations, stating they only had one account and had not violated any rules. The casino had linked the player's account to another account that had been closed due to fraudulent behavior, claiming the player had earned most of their winnings from sports betting. Eventually, the player had reported reaching an agreement with the casino, resolving the issue. However, the player later admitted to having used an abusive betting strategy, which led to the rejection of their complaint.

The player from Italy was unable to withdraw winnings from Shuffle. The casino claimed a violation of terms and conditions due to the use of a VPN and engaging in sure bets. The player contested the casino's interpretation of these terms. The player admitted to using a VPN but claimed it was not used while betting on Shuffle. He also acknowledged engaging in sure bets, but argued that Shuffle should not have been concerned with his betting activities on other platforms. We contacted the casino for more information, but ultimately had to reject the player's complaint due to its relation to sports betting, which fell outside our area of expertise.

The player from Ukraine had experienced a delay in withdrawing 160 USDT, even though his account was verified. He had also faced difficulties in contacting the casino's customer support. We had advised him to wait for at least 14 days after requesting the withdrawal, as delays could have been due to pending KYC verification or a high volume of withdrawal requests. The player did not respond to our follow-up messages, which hindered further investigation. However, we later reopened the complaint upon request from the casino, which confirmed that the player's winnings had been fully paid after he provided the necessary KYC documentation. We had then marked the complaint as 'resolved'.

The player from the US had found his account on Shuffle platform locked with 0.12 ETH still in it. The casino claimed multiple accounts had been created from the same IP address and device with the same betting pattern, thus violating their services' terms. The player stated he used a VPN in a supported region and only one device for betting which was similar to that of many other players. He denied using false identity information. The player also added that he had only provided basic KYC1 information. After reviewing the case, we found that the main issue was centered around the player's use of sports betting, which we currently do not have enough insight into. As such, we were unable to evaluate the issue properly and the complaint had been rejected.

The player from Norway had encountered a system error in the middle of auto bet on a dice game. After a winning streak had boosted his balance from $75 to $425, the betting system had failed to reset the bet from $120 to $0.94 after a loss, draining the balance in three spins. The player had also noted unresponsiveness from the casino. Despite the player's attempt to provide a video as evidence, we could not accept it as it did not directly show his game. Consequently, due to lack of solid evidence, we had to reject the complaint.

A player from Spain is having an issue with an online casino based in the Netherlands that operates with cryptocurrency. Although some games allowed access, other games denied it due to location restrictions. After contacting support, the player's account was closed and they wish to recover their lost funds. The complaint was rejected as the player had no remaining balance on account when it got blocked.