Thor Casino Review

The player from Spain has been accused of breaching bonus terms by placing bets greater than the allowed ones. After the discussion, the casino was able to provide us with sufficient evidence of the player making larger bets than maximum and also the communication with the live chat, where they have instructed the player with this rule. We were forced to reject this complaint as unjustified.

The player from the Philippines got his account blocked after he requested a withdrawal. The casino responded and stated that the player's account was linked to multiple other accounts. The player was questioned about this but stopped responding to our messages, so the complaint was rejected.

The player from Portugal had made multiple deposits totaling 95€, but the funds had not been credited to his casino account. Despite reaching out to customer support, he only received automated responses asking for patience. The issue was resolved after the player contacted his payment provider for an investigation into the uncredited deposits, which was acknowledged by the Complaints Team. The complaint was marked as 'resolved' following the player's confirmation of resolution.

The player from Poland had his fully verified account deactivated by Casinostars after he requested a 1000 EUR withdrawal. He suspected the casino blocked his account to avoid paying the remaining 100 EUR of his 3000 EUR winnings. The casino reopened his account later to allow the withdrawal of the cashback, resolving the issue.

The player from Germany had raised a complaint about his winnings being voided by Betroom 24 Casino, citing a breach of bonus terms. The casino had claimed that the player consistently claimed deposit bonuses, which they considered as bonus abuse. The player had argued that he made several deposits without winning anything and questioned the fairness of the casino's practices. The casino maintained their stance, stating their terms were clear and the player violated them. Despite our team's attempts to mediate, the casino refused to pay the player's winnings. We labelled the complaint as 'unresolved' due to the casino's decision being against our Fair Gambling Codex. The casino later provided evidence that the player agreed to an offer, leading us to consider the issue as resolved.

The player from Denmark had been accused of breaching bonus terms by purchasing in-game features. The casino, Betroom24, had insisted that the player violated their terms and conditions, even after the player had completed the wagering requirements and requested a withdrawal. The player had argued that the casino's terms were unclear and unfair. Despite our team's efforts to mediate the situation and suggest a fair resolution, the casino had maintained its stance and refused to pay the player's winnings. Eventually, the casino and the player reached a mutual agreement, and the case was closed.

The player from Switzerland had his account disabled shortly after he requested it to be reopened. He had confirmed receiving two previous payouts, with an account balance of around $4400 before the blockage. The casino had stated the case was being handled by the Curacao gambling authority. The player had complained about the regulator's lack of response and accused the casino of avoiding responsibility. Despite multiple attempts to reach a resolution, the regulator had not responded within a reasonable time frame. The complaint had been closed as 'unresolved' due to this uncertainty. However, the casino later shared an email exchange that indicated a mutual agreement with the player, leading to the case being marked as resolved.

The player from Portugal reported that her account at Mond Casino had been closed following a security review, although she had never requested account closure. After submitting all requested documentation, she received a notification stating her account was closed at her request, leaving her without her winnings and without any explanation. The Complaints Team intervened, highlighting issues with the casino's procedures regarding document submission timelines and the handling of the player's winnings. Ultimately, the casino returned the winnings to the player, who successfully submitted a withdrawal request. The issue was resolved, and the player confirmed receipt of the funds.

The player from Germany had deposited €200 and met the wagering requirements, reaching a balance of €2,307. Despite completing the verification process, the casino revoked his winnings, citing non-recreational play patterns and alleged abuse of bonus terms. All games played were allowed according to the bonus terms. The issue was resolved when the casino later agreed to allow him to withdraw his winnings. The player confirmed the successful withdrawal, and the complaint was marked as resolved.

The player from Rhineland-Palatinate had complained about a delayed payout request and heavy playing restrictions following a small win. The issue was resolved when the casino allowed the player to withdraw to an e-wallet, and the case had been closed successfully.

The player from Thailand is complaining about Mond Casino confiscating their 400 euros in winnings due to adjusting their bet amount while fulfilling bonus wagering requirements. The player followed all other terms and conditions and requests assistance in getting their winnings reinstated. After our intervention, we were able to help the player to get their winnings. The player confirmed they received the funds in the end. The Player’s complaint has been resolved successfully.

The player from Vietnam requested several withdrawals from the casino. At first, his requests were rejected because the deposits had not been fully wagered. After opening the complaint with us, the player received his winnings.

The player from Austria is experiencing difficulties withdrawing his winnings due to ongoing verification. The player later confirmed that the withdrawal was processed successfully, therefore we marked this complaint as resolved.

The player's unable to withdraw his winnings from a bonus as it required a deposit prior to it. The player confirmed he agreed to compensation from the casino and therefore we consider the issue as resolved.

The player from Greece accumulated winnings with a bonus. Later the casino informed him that he didn't meet the requirements to be eligible for the bonus, and his winnings were confiscated. Eventually the issue was successfully resolved.

The player's winnings were voided due to a breach of the max bet rule. At that time, the casino had a policy, according to which bonuses are considered active (and bonus rules apply) until a player successfully withdraws the winnings. The player was not aware of this policy and after meeting the wagering requirement bet an amount higher than the allowed one. At the time of the resolution of the complaint, this policy had already been changed and the bonuses are now not considered active after the wagering requirements have been met. The player and the casino reached a mutual agreement. The complaint was closed as 'Resolved' after the player confirmed the issue had been resolved to his satisfaction.

The player from Lithuania had challenged an online casino's application of their free spins policy. He had been successful in his games and made several withdrawal requests. However, the casino forfeited his winnings above 50 EUR, which was the maximum withdrawal amount from free spins. The player argued that he used real money funds, not bonus money, to win and therefore his funds should not have been forfeited. We examined the casino's terms and conditions and engaged in discussions with both the player and the casino. Despite lengthy discussions, the casino refused to pay the player his winnings, arguing that the winnings were capped due to the free spins policy. We marked the complaint as unresolved. After reopening the complaint at the request of the casino, the team received evidence that the player agreed to an offer made by the casino, leading to the resolution of the issue.

The player from Finland tried to withdraw her winnings, but the transaction has not been processed. The player later confirmed that the withdrawal was processed successfully, therefore we marked this complaint as resolved.