StayCasino Review

The player from Germany had requested self-exclusion from Zotabet due to gambling addiction and was supposed to have been blocked on all casinos with the same license. Nonetheless, she was able to deposit €410 at StayCasino, which operated under the same license, and then requested a refund. However, we had explained that self-exclusion from one casino did not automatically apply to all casinos under the same license, unless the player had specifically informed each casino about their gambling problem. Despite the player's claims of being exploited by StayCasino, we found no evidence to support this. As a result, we didn't believe the player was entitled to a refund and the complaint was rejected.

The player from Canada had been unable to withdraw $200 from his casino account, despite being a verified member. He had to submit around 70 documents for re-verification, and his withdrawal remained pending. He had raised the issue with the casino but continually received the same response. After an extended period of back-and-forth without resolution, the player had decided to reverse his winnings and cut ties with the casino. We were unable to assist further as the player had chosen to close the case.

The player from Ireland had an issue with the online casino operated by dama.nv. Despite having self-excluded due to a gambling addiction with sister sites of the same operator, the player had been able to open an account and lost approximately 2500€. The player claimed this was a breach of the operator's duty and the terms and conditions of the Curaçao gaming license. However, we found that the player did not provide sufficient evidence of his self-exclusion request from Stay Casino. Therefore, we were unable to support his claim and advised him to contact the casino's licensing authorities directly.

The player from Australia had experienced a delay in depositing money into the casino using a Neosurf voucher. Despite having provided proof of deposit and waited for three hours, she was informed that the "relevant department" would review it within 24 hours. We had advised her to contact her payment provider for further investigation, as the casino typically had limited control over these situations. However, despite our attempts to assist and follow up, the player did not respond to our inquiries, leading to the complaint being rejected due to lack of further information.

The player from Germany had won €300, but experienced issues during the verification process. Once she was verified, her withdrawal was denied by the casino because they claimed she gambled the winnings, a claim which the player denied. She sought help to get her winnings. The player had provided the necessary documents for verification, but the casino claimed that she had used a third-party credit card for her deposit, which violated their rules. After we reviewed the evidence from the casino, we found that the player had indeed violated the casino's rules by using a third-party payment method. As a result, the complaint was rejected.

The player from New Zealand made a deposit of $50 and received a bonus of $15. He won $15k NZD and attempted to withdraw the funds; however, the casino denied the withdrawal citing the bonus terms and conditions, and only paid out $150. The player claims that the winnings came from the original deposit, not from the bonus, and is seeking a resolution. We closed the complaint because the winnings were reduced in compliance with the bonus terms.

The player from Canada requested a 3-month cool-off period but it was only implemented for 3 days. They contacted live chat and emailed their VIP manager multiple times to self-exclude, but their requests were ignored or met with further questions. During this time, the player deposited over $11,000 and withdrew $4,500. They believe the casino is not following responsible gambling guidelines and intentionally stalling and delaying the self-exclusion process. After a closer examination, we ended up rejecting this complaint as unjustified.

The player's winnings were canceled due to a bug in a game. We ended up rejecting the complaint because the casino provided evidence including a statement from the game provider suggesting that the winnings were a result of a technical bug.