SpinsBro Casino Review

The player from Sweden was unable to withdraw €450 out of his €3,800 balance at the online casino. Despite having met all conditions, the withdrawal request had been pending for 44 hours, and no assistance had been provided. The player claimed to be fully verified and had not used any bonus to accumulate his winnings. We attempted to resolve the issue by requesting additional information and extending the response time. However, due to the player's lack of response to our inquiries, we were unable to further investigate or provide potential solutions. The case was consequently rejected.

The player from Germany had had winnings and an active game on SpinsBro Casino when her account was unexpectedly closed while it had approximately €4000 in it. The casino had cited a violation of terms and conditions as the reason for the closure, which the player had disputed. She had reported a problem with missing free spins prior to the closure. After a series of communications, the casino admitted their mistake and agreed to refund the remaining balance of around €3000. The payment had been successfully made and the player had confirmed receipt. The complaint was then marked as 'resolved' by the Complaints Team.

The player from Belgium had been unable to withdraw 600 euro from her account after making several previous withdrawals. The casino had restricted her access for verification and had not responded to her queries. The player had reported that she played slot games and had both active and inactive bonuses. Despite multiple attempts by the Complaints Team to gather more information and offer assistance, the player did not respond. Consequently, we were unable to further investigate or propose potential solutions, leading to the rejection of the complaint.

The player from Japan had had an issue with SpinsBro Casino regarding reductions in his balance. After he had received a deposit bonus, the player had fulfilled wagering requirements and had raised his balance to 1500 EUR, which was then reduced to 1000 EUR. The player played again, raising the balance to 1600 EUR, but upon his withdrawal request, the balance was reduced again to 1000 EUR. The player had questioned these reductions. After several exchanges, the casino admitted to a mistake and refunded the player's money. However, the player had claimed a small amount was still missing. The Casino did not confirm this, but the player had decided to consider the case resolved despite the minor discrepancy.

The player from French Guiana had deposited 80 Euros in the casino, played, and won, but thereafter, his account was blocked citing a gambling addiction. Although he was told it was an error, his account remained blocked despite several attempts to reach out to the casino. The casino claimed the player had two accounts with different personal information and thus, closed the second account and refunded the deposits. However, the player denied receiving the refund. We had attempted to mediate the situation by asking for transaction details and extending the complaint resolution time, but then player stopped responding. We believe he got the refund, but without confirmation. We had to reject the complaint.

The player from Germany had issues with delayed withdrawals from his casino account. The casino was paying out in small instalments over an extended period, despite his VIP status. An additional 4000 Euros were stuck due to a limit on withdrawals. The player also expressed concerns about his gambling addiction, claiming that the casino failed to close his account despite his repeated requests. He lost around 19,000 Euros within 8 weeks and accused the casino of not taking player protection seriously. After reviewing the provided evidence and information from both sides, we concluded that the player's claims could not be substantiated due to lack of reliable proof. The complaint was rejected.

The player from Germany had submitted a withdrawal request less than two weeks prior to contacting us. Winnings hadn't been obtained up to that day. The delay was potentially due to unfinished KYC verification or a high volume of withdrawal requests. The casino had confirmed the player's account was fully verified and the withdrawal had been processed. The player then confirmed the receipt of his winnings, thus successfully resolving the issue.

The player from Germany encountered a system error that reset his bonus balance to zero while he was in the middle of a game. He is certain he did not cancel the bonus and seeks clarification. The player considered the casino cleared up the isunderstanding of the situation and asked us to close the complaint.

A player from Lithuania is experiencing a delayed withdrawal process from the casino after winning a substantial amount. The casino has not been responsive and recently stated a need for additional verification, which the player disputes. The player is now seeking a refund of all deposits totaling 556 EUR. The casino showed us evidence that the player received the verification email and that there are no sufficient grounds for a refund as the player lost his funds himself therefore we have rejected the complaint.

The player from Berlin has requested a withdrawal prior to submitting this complaint. Unfortunately, their winnings haven’t been received yet. He later noticed that his winnings were reduced. We ended up rejecting the complaint because the winnings were capped in compliance with the bonus T&Cs.

The player from Canada has been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, their payout hasn’t been received yet. We rejected the complaint because the casino provided evidence confirming the bonus taken by the player had a maximum cashout which was applied to the player's winnings.

The player from Turkey had issues with approval of his verification documents. He stopped responding to our questions and comments, so we had to reject the complaint. After that, he informed us via email that his winnings were paid out after five weeks, so we changed the status of the complaint to resolved.

The player from Germany made a deposit, but he was immediately blocked. The casino promised a deposit refund, but it has not been processed yet. After our intervention, we were able to help the player. The player confirmed they received the initial deposit back. The Player’s complaint has been resolved successfully.

The player from Sweden had his account blocked without further explanation. After a closer examination, we ended up rejecting this complaint as the player has previously closed their accounts within the casino group due to game addiction and should not open another account. The casino has returned the player their initial deposit and blacklisted the player in all other casinos within the same casino group which we consider as the right approach.

The player from Norway had not received his withdrawal request made eight days prior at Gangsta Casino, despite having contacted the KYC department multiple times. The player confirmed that his verification had been approved and that he had not used any bonuses. The casino communicated that delays in payments were due to a high volume of withdrawal requests but later confirmed that the player’s payment of 300 euros had been processed. The issue was resolved, and the player acknowledged receipt of the funds.

The player from Mexico had experienced issues with the withdrawal process at an online casino. After waiting for three business days, he had reported that the casino claimed he didn't have any active withdrawal requests. His account had already been verified and he had stated that he didn't use bonuses, only his own money. The player later informed us that the casino had contacted him and resolved the issue. As a result, we had marked the complaint as 'resolved' in our system.

The player from Palestine had experienced a technical issue while playing live poker at an online casino. Despite the service provider having acknowledged a fault on their end, the casino had not credited the player's winnings. The player had also been blocked from live chat and his emails were being ignored. The player had provided evidence of the issue, and the casino had initially denied any errors. However, after further communication and the player's threat of legal action, the casino had agreed to verify the player's account and manually process a withdrawal of his winnings. The player had confirmed receipt of his winnings and the issue had been resolved.