Solisbet Casino Review

The player from Netherlands had asked the casino to close his account due to problematic gambling but was able to deposit and lose 800 EURO afterwards. He then requested a refund. The player claimed to have informed the casino about his gambling issue via live chat, but could not provide any evidence. The casino provided the live chat history, which showed no mention of the player's gambling problem before the losses. The player accused the casino of withholding chat transcripts, but failed to provide proof. After reviewing all the information, we concluded that the player had not informed the casino about his gambling problem before depositing the money and thus, the request for a refund was rejected.

The player from Chile had won a significant amount of money after playing various games and making a deposit. However, when he attempted to withdraw his winnings through a Bitcoin account, the funds were not available. The casino's support had cited a breach of rules as the reason for confiscating the winnings. After an exchange of information and extending the timeline of the complaint, the player did not respond to further inquiries. Unable to investigate without the player's cooperation, we had been forced to reject the complaint.

The player from Canada had encountered issues with payment. The casino had claimed that her account was duplicated, therefore, they had closed the account and refused to release the winnings. Although they had returned the deposit, they still refused to pay the profits. The player had explained that she shared the same IP address with others and played slot games. She also admitted that she and a friend had used the same account. The casino's terms and conditions, however, allowed only one player account per individual. After a thorough review and evidence provided by the casino, we had found discrepancies in the player's statements. Despite the casino's advice to create a new account, the player had submitted documents for the current account which led to its closure. Therefore, we had to reject the complaint.

The player from the Netherlands had requested self-exclusion from an online casino due to his gambling addiction, but the casino did not comply immediately, which allowed him to continue gambling and lose over 4000. The player had sought a refund of a portion of his losses. After an exchange of emails and the intervention of the Complaints Team, the issue had been successfully resolved with the casino. The player's account had since been closed and no further action was required.

The player from the Netherlands had reported a license-related issue with the casino and sought a refund for his €40 deposit. The player had claimed the casino's license was unverified, but upon checking, we confirmed that the casino had been operating under a valid Gaming Curacao license. The player had also mentioned issues with account closure, but failed to provide proof of his request to the casino. Due to a lack of response and cooperation from the player, we were unable to investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Finland had initially requested self-exclusion due to gambling issues but had experienced a delay in account closure that resulted in further losses. Despite having contacted the casino through live chat and email, his account had remained active for approximately 35 hours during which he had made several deposits. The casino eventually closed the account and offered compensation in the form of free spins, which the player had found unsatisfactory. After the complaint had been reopened, the player revealed that the casino had reopened his account, resulting in additional losses exceeding 357€. The casino acknowledged their mistake and agreed to refund the player. The player had confirmed receiving the refund, marking the resolution of the complaint.