Weiss Casino Review

The player from Portugal had fulfilled the playthrough requirements, but his withdrawal request was continuously denied by Weiss Casino. The casino had kept changing their rules about where the player had played, preventing him from withdrawing his balance of 100€. After the player confirmed he had wagered his deposit more than once and completed full KYC verification, the casino had asked him to resubmit his withdrawal request. The player was eventually able to withdraw his money. We had marked the complaint as resolved.

The player from Portugal could not withdraw funds despite having met the play-through requirements three times. The player confirmed that he did not have any active bonuses. The casino responded by processing the player's withdrawal request. However, the player was only able to withdraw a part of his winnings initially and was told he needed to gamble more to withdraw the rest. After some back-and-forth communication with the casino's live support and multiple rejected withdrawal requests, the player was finally able to withdraw all of his winnings. The issue was successfully resolved, and the complaint was closed.

The player from Portugal had deposited €100 and played various games. Despite being told by the support team that he could withdraw his funds, his withdrawal attempts had been consistently rejected. The player claimed to have complied with all the casino's requirements. He also reported that his withdrawable balance was €90, which later increased to €150 after being forced to play slots. Despite the casino's representatives stating they had no record of a withdrawal request and offering assistance, the player did not respond to further queries. As a result, we were unable to investigate further and the complaint was rejected.

The player from Sweden had admitted to having a problem with gambling and had requested account closure due to self-exclusion. Despite this, the casino allegedly did not close the account and the player had continued to deposit and lose money. After a series of correspondences, the casino had identified a miscommunication in the email address used for support. The player had provided necessary documents to support his claim. The casino had agreed to refund the player's losses. The refund process was initiated and the player had confirmed receipt of the refund. The issue had been successfully resolved with the casino's cooperation.

The player from Hungary had won a bet and played multiple games, but he was unable to receive his winnings. After depositing about 251 Trx, he had placed two bets and played casino games for about the same amount. However, the casino had required him to adjust the x1 wager, leading to the cancellation of his withdrawal request. The Complaints Team had attempted to investigate the issue further, but due to the player's lack of response to their messages, they were unable to proceed. The issue remained unresolved as the complaint was ultimately rejected.

The player from Portugal had won 8710 USDT at the online casino but had been facing continuous withdrawal rejections. He had only received partial payments totalling approximately 1400 USDT over 2 weeks and was concerned about how long the full payout would take. The player confirmed that he had passed the KYC verification and had not used any bonuses. The casino's support had suggested different withdrawal methods, but the player found them unsuitable. The casino representative stated that all funds had been successfully withdrawn, but the player did not confirm this. Despite our attempts to communicate with the player, he did not respond, leaving us unable to investigate further. The complaint was therefore rejected.

The player from Portugal was unable to withdraw her winnings because the casino required the creation of a wallet account for cryptocurrency transactions. The Complaints Team had explained that payment methods were influenced by several factors, including licensing authority, geolocation, and bank restrictions. The team had attempted to engage the player for further investigation, but due to a lack of response from the player, the complaint was rejected.