Unibet Casino NJ Review

The player from Norway had initiated a withdrawal of 7,877€ from his Unibet account on February 10 and was experiencing delays. Despite multiple attempts to get answers from Unibet's customer support, he needed this issue to be clarified and resolved immediately. The player had confirmed that the withdrawal was still pending and it was an issue related to his account only. His winnings had been accumulated without an active bonus. We had advised the player to contact Unibet's Help Center directly as Unibet Casinos had decided not to publicly address any of our open cases due to GDPR restrictions. We marked this complaint as unresolved due to the casino's unresponsiveness.

The player from the UK had used his partner's phone to bet on an online casino, then won and withdrew 600. However, the online casino had refused to pay out his winnings, claiming that the use of his partner's phone was against their policy. The casino had confiscated all his winnings due to the rule violation. We had explained to the player that it was a player’s responsibility to use only allowed payment methods and this could only be checked during account verification, which was usually done when a withdrawal was requested. Despite our efforts to assist, the player's complaint was ultimately rejected due to the violation of the casino's policy.

The player from Luxembourg had questioned whether the MGA casino was obligated to follow the MGA Responsible Gaming Code and the possible repercussions if it didn't. They were also contemplating about asking for a refund of deposits made. The player had not self-excluded from the casino, but cited several other factors from the MGA code that they believed the casino had not adhered to. After reviewing the player's concerns, we advised them to contact the MGA directly as they were the licensing authority. The player reported that they had already contacted MGA, but received no response. As the player did not have an active self-exclusion with any MGA-licensed casino, we were unable to assist further, leading to the complaint being declined.

The player from the Netherlands had claimed that mandatory addiction prevention measures at the casino had failed, leading to their losses. They were then seeking compensation. However, the player had not provided sufficient information or evidence to support these claims. Despite repeated requests from our team for more details, the player's responses had remained vague and unhelpful. Consequently, we were unable to proceed with the case and had to close it without further investigation due to lack of cooperation from the player's side.

The player from Poland had submitted a withdrawal request less than two weeks prior to contacting us. Winnings hadn't been obtained up to that day. The Complaints Team had advised the player to wait for at least 14 days after requesting the withdrawal before submitting a complaint, as it was quite usual for withdrawals to take some time due to KYC verification or high volume of withdrawal requests. After 10 days, the player confirmed that the casino had verified his account and he had received his winnings. Consequently, we marked the complaint as resolved.

A Gamstop registered player from the UK was able to set up, deposit, and play on Unibet, despite informing the operators about his Gamstop status. The player, who also had an account with their sister site Red32, lost £3000 over a month due to this. He claims errors in his personal details verification and accuses Unibet of a lack of duty of care. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Japan has been experiencing a three-month delay in withdrawal. We marked this complaint as unresolved because the entire Unibet Casinos group has chosen not to provide public comments on any of our open cases.

The player from the Netherlands struggled with a gambling addiction and deposited over 7000 while under the influence of alcohol. He had previously asked Unibet to stop him from gambling and requested a refund of his deposits. The player believes the situation could have been prevented with timely intervention.

The player from New Zealand has been waiting for over 106 days for a response from the casino's support team regarding submitted documents. We marked this complaint as unresolved because the entire Unibet Casinos group has chosen not to provide public comments on any of our open cases.

The player from Poland reports that his Unibet account is suspended and he is unable to access his money. Even after sending a selfie with ID card and utility bill for verification, his account remains suspended.

The player from UK is unable to withdraw £230 from their Unibet account after moving out from England. They are being requested additional proof of address which the player cannot provide due to the relocation, despite their betting fair when they were residents of England.

The player from Sweden has been experiencing significant delays in their withdrawal requests involving large sums. The casino requested additional information and then ceased communication, providing repeated automated replies.

The player from Hungary requested a withdrawal. They were asked for re-verification, but their account was closed after uploading the required documents. They no longer have access to their account or any information about their deposited money. Although the casino was not able to provide us with the necessary details and information to fully review the case on our side, it is regulated by one of the better and more reputable regulators, so we advised the player to submit a complaint to one of the casino's ADRs or the regulator directly and provide us with a confirmation. However, the complaint was later rejected because the player stopped responding to our messages and questions.

The player from Hungary has difficulty withdrawing his winnings from Unibet Casino. After transferring a considerable amount to his bank account, he was informed that he would only receive a portion of it, with the casino claiming a violation of their policy. We were forced to reject this complaint because the player focused only on sports betting.

The player from Sweden has requested a self-exclusion back in 2019. Unfortunately, the inquiry was ignored and the player was able to access the account. We marked this complaint as rejected since the incident occurred more than four years ago and gathering of evidence and construction of a timeline would be extremely challenging, if not impossible.

The player's unable to play any game as the casino blocked his access to them. The complaint has been closed as 'unresolved' because the casino failed to reply and cooperate in resolving the complaint. There was no progress even two weeks after the casino was notified about the player's complaint.

The player from Italy was experiencing difficulties verifying her account as the documents she submits are not accepted. The casino has not responded to the complaint, and it was closed as "unresolved".

The player from Germany is experiencing difficulties withdrawing his winnings due to ongoing verification. Unfortunately, there was no response from the casino so the complaint was closed as 'unresolved'.

The player's account got blocked for a routine check. The casino responded and stated that they had already provided a final response to the player, and had provided information regarding submitting a complaint to the relevant dispute resolution service. As it seemed that the casino would share no further information with us, we also recommended that the player contact the ADR. The player stopped responding at this point, so the complaint was eventually rejected.

The player's balance was voided as he was self-excluded in a sister casino. The complaint was closed as we are waiting for the regulator's decision. The complaint was closed as the player stopped responding.

The player from the UK has been blocked due to active self-exclusion in a sister casino. Since the player didn't self-exclude from this casino directly, casinos do not share the same license, he is not registered at Gamstop and self-exclusion from one casino isn't applied to all associated websites, the player was free to create an account here. Therefore the casino was free to close it whenever as long as the remaining balace was returned to the player. Since there was no legal rule that would bind the casino to refund deposits in such cases, and the remaining balance was paid out, we were forced to reject this complaint.

The player from Netherlands is claiming a full refund as he was able to register multiple accounts as minor and later being able to reopen an account which has been self-excluded previously. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Germany requested a withdrawal of a significant amount a few days ago, but the payment hasn’t been processed yet. The player received his winnings, so we marked this complaint as resolved.

The player deposited €2000 after verifying her account, but she is not able to play or withdraw this amount. We rejected this complaint, because the player refused to send documents needed for verification.