Unibet Casino Review

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 ''art84'' from Kyrgyzstan wanted to withdraw his funds on 15.02.2021 because Kyrgyzstan was going to be banned in the casino and players should withdraw their funds till 25.02.2021. However, player couldn't withdraw his money since withdrawing his funds to the card had failed, as well as the withdrawl back to the deposit method. After the player asked the casino to provide him with payment methods available to him, the casino never answered and his account got blocked from 26.02.2021.There was no reaction from the casino to this complaint.

The player requested withdrawal and said he'd provided every document for verification immediately, but his withdrawal still wasn't approved more than a month later. He said all requests were pending. There was no reaction from the casino and no more updates since then.

The player complained that 10 days passed since her withdrawal but despite that she'd been verified, she didn't get paid, and the casino support just kept telling her to wait. There was no reaction from the casino and no more updates since then.

The player complained that the casino had sent winnings to the wrong bank account, which didn't exist anymore. The bank returned the funds back to the casino, however, more than 3 weeks later, the casino still hasn't confirmed any reception of the returned funds.

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 complained that Unibet would't accept their proof of payment via Neosurf voucher. Despite accepting deposits with this payment method, the casino refused to accept transactions history and a receipt as sufficient, therefore, the player couldn't withdraw their winnings. The casino didn't cooperate on resolving this complaint.

A player from Morocco had their account closed while having more than 300€ balance still there. The casino asked for verification documents, the player sent them, but later, he requested a refund of the funds blocked in his account and because withdraval via bank transfer had been disabled he gave them other withdrawal method options. The casino did not respond ever since.

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 complained about issues with withdrawing funds. The request got cancelled and the technical support couldn't provide any answers. The player's account had been verified. The casino didn't react to this complaint.

A player from Kyrgyzstan complained about the casino telling him it was not possible to transfer withdrawal via the same method he had used for depositing. However, there were issues with optional payment methods too. The casino refused to react to 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.

After the player requested a withdrawal, the casino asked them to provide different documents for verification, which they did. Later on, their account was closed, their winnings were confiscated and their deposit was returned to them. The casino claimed that according to their terms and conditions, they were allowed to do so any time they decided to. The complaint was left without any response from the casino and it remains unsolved.

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.

Hans, a player from Germany, played in the casino 24hbet where he had €15,000 left. All the 24hbet casino's players accounts were transferred to Unibet casino. The player created a new account with Unibet and provided all the documents needed for verification. With adding some additional documents, they were all approved. After that, Hans asked the casino via email if he could receive the remaining balance from 24hbet casino. The casino responded stating that they need his ID and utility documents again, even though those were approved just recently. When Hans asked the casino for an update, he kept receiving the same answer, to send the documents for verification again. Hans became very frustrated and this case remains open.

The player made three deposits of $85, $90, and $20. He tried to withdraw some of his winnings but first, he needed to send some documents for verification. He sent those requested documents to the casino, but they wouldn't accept them. The casino was supposed to contact the player about an update via email and they did, one year later!!! They asked him to provide the same documents for verification again. During that year, the player closed his Entropay account and lost any hope to ever receive his winnings that he won so fairly. In the complaint, he also mentioned that he would like the casino to refund him on at least one of his deposits through a Neteller account. There is no update on this complaint.

The player from Norway had been experiencing difficulties withdrawing her funds due to limited availability of payment methods. After some time, player has contacted the oewner sof the casino and, in a week, the issue has been resolved.

The player from Canada had an active self-exclusion in a sister casino. He believes that he should not have been able to register a new account with Bingo.com Casino. Since the player confirmed receiving refund, we closed the case as 'resolved'.

The player from Finland was experiencing difficulties withdrawing her winnings due to ongoing additional verification. The player was found to have multiple accounts, but was allowed to keep one of these open and continue playing. There was some confusion regarding outsatnding documents for verification, but then the casino looked into the player's account and confirmed that the account had been verified and that all issues were resolved. The player was then able to make their withdrawal and received their payment.