Wild.io Casino Review

The player from Ukraine submitted documents for KYC on June 13, but the verification process was still pending and funds remained unpaid as of June 17. The player had not received any response from the casino for over a day and was uncertain about the next steps. The account was eventually verified, and the money was paid. The complaint was marked as resolved by us after receiving confirmation from the player.

The player from Georgia deposited $10 in Bitcoin to the casino, but was informed that the amount was too small and was lost. The player was unable to retrieve the funds. We attempted to gather more information from the player regarding the deposit and the casino's minimum deposit requirement, but the player did not respond. Consequently, the complaint was rejected due to the lack of response from the player.

The player, originally from Portugal and residing in Canada, had deposited 4.6 BTC into a non-KYC website and later attempted to withdraw 5.21 BTC. Due to initially using filler information, the player could not pass the KYC verification and was informed that they had breached the terms, resulting in only 2.14 BTC being returned instead of the full 4.6 BTC deposit. The player sought an amicable resolution. We determined that the casino had the right to close the account and confiscate winnings due to the breach of terms involving fake registration details, and thus, the complaint was rejected.

The player from Florida deposited $38, exceeding the $37.7 minimum deposit, but the casino did not count it due to a mismatch in the amount in the crypto equivalent. We reached out to the casino, which explained that the deposit amount was below the minimum required due to blockchain fees. Despite the player's claim that funds were confirmed to his address, the casino insisted the funds never reached them. As a goodwill gesture, the casino credited the player's account with the equivalent amount as a bonus, subject to a 1x wagering requirement. The issue was assumed resolved, but without player confirmation, the complaint was rejected.

The Ukrainian player made a deposit and played at Wild.io, but his third withdrawal attempt triggered a verification process. Despite providing the required documents, his account and $38 win remained pending. The casino's customer service was unresponsive. We were unable to investigate further as the player did not respond to our messages and questions. Consequently, the complaint was rejected.

The player from Ireland sought access to his account and €1351 in winnings at Wild.io Casino. Despite completing the KYC process, his account remained locked due to allegations of bonus misuse. He planned to lodge a formal complaint with the casino's licensing provider. The Complaints Team determined that the player had not followed the casino's instructions to upload the necessary documents directly to his account. The complaint was rejected due to the player's failure to complete the required verification process, non-cooperation, and stopped responding.

The player from Estonia had deposited $50 and participated in a bonus hunt. After winning some games, their balance had disappeared. When they contacted support, they were informed that they had broken the rules and their account was banned. The player disputed this, claiming no such rule existed in the TOS. However, the Complaints Team determined that the casino had been within its rights to withhold the player's winnings and close the account, as delaying rounds, which the player admitted to doing, is considered a form of advantage play and is generally prohibited in online casinos. The complaint was ultimately rejected.

The player from Germany had his withdrawal cancelled and account closed, as the casino suspected he used two profiles based on an IP address match. The player claimed he had been playing on a friend's computer because his own wasn't powerful enough to run the games. Despite the player's insistence that they were two different people, the casino had provided evidence of an IP match, device match, similar gameplay, same deposit currency, and identical usage of three welcome bonuses on each account. After reviewing the evidence, we had concluded that the casino's actions had been justified due to a violation of their terms and conditions. Therefore, the complaint had been rejected.

The player from Utah was upset because the game Gemhalla on Wild.io had changed its return to player (RTP) ratio without notification. Due to this change, the player had lost $2209.44 in the past two days. The player claimed that the RTP was advertised as 97% but was then reduced to 94% without notice. However, we clarified that many casinos showed real-time RTP or results from a certain period, which could change. The casino also assured the player that they did not intervene in the outcomes of games. Despite extending the timeline for the player to respond, no further information was provided, and we had to reject the complaint.

The player from Latvia had an issue with account closure at Wild.io after she won a significant amount. She had successfully completed a detailed verification process, which included a Skype call. However, her account was later blocked. Wild.io accused the player of unfair winnings, but she denied these accusations, suggesting that such treatment only happened to players who won big using the Welcome Package bonuses. Wild.io claimed that the player was from a region where the welcome package was not allowed, a claim the player denied, stating she had always played from her home Latvian IP. We advised the player on how to contact the regulator and were awaiting a decision from them.

The player from Ireland had encountered an issue with Wild.io Casino. After winning €6,830, his account had been closed, and the winnings had been confiscated. The player denied breaking any terms. We had reached out to him for additional information to help investigate the issue, however, due to a lack of response from the player, we were unable to proceed with the investigation or provide potential solutions. Therefore, the complaint was rejected.

The player from the United States accuses the casino of misleading information about bonuses and promotional offers, and unsatisfactory customer service. Furthermore, the casino won't allow account deletion as requested by the player.

The player from Azerbaijan had had an issue with bonus wagering at an online casino. After having deposited twice and accepted bonuses, they discovered that their account balance had shrunk to the deposit amount. The casino's live support had been unhelpful, and the player's account had not been verified at the time of the incident. The casino had cited a violation of their terms and conditions for the confiscation of the player's winnings. Later, the casino had claimed that the player resided in a region where the welcome package was not applicable, a condition which had not been effectively communicated to the player. The player had disputed these claims, alleging that the casino had retroactively changed its terms and conditions. The casino had remained firm in its decision. We had recommended the player contact the Curacao Antillephone N.V. for further assistance. After reopening the complaint, the casino decided to let the player finish wagering the bonus but the player stopped responding and we ended up rejecting the complaint.

The player from Germany had requested self-exclusion from Wild.io Casino due to his gambling addiction. Despite this, he had been able to register and lost approximately €1900. He was then seeking a refund, alleging that the casino had failed to uphold gambling addiction prevention measures. The player claimed that he had contacted the casino about his problem after losing the money and his account was blocked on 11/5/2023. However, we concluded that since the casino had not responded to his initial self-exclusion request, it could be assumed they had not received it and therefore did not automatically block him. As many casinos lacked preemptive blocking measures, his complaint was rejected.

The player from Russia had his account locked by the casino, which had accused her of violating terms and conditions, including the alleged misuse of the welcome offer through certain strategies. The player had denied any wrongdoing, asserting he had made only one deposit and had not made any successful withdrawals. Our team had engaged in a dialogue with the casino but had received insufficient evidence to support the casino's claims. Despite the player's behavior potentially indicating bonus hunting, we had determined that no rules were breached. As the casino had failed to provide adequate proof and reasoning, we were unable to resolve the issue in the player's favor and had to mark the complaint as 'unresolved'. We advised the player to contact the Curacao Gaming Authority for further assistance. Later after receiving multiple pieces of indirect evidence we reopened the complaint and asked the player to cooperate with the casino and finish the verification process. The player stopped responding.

The player from Germany had experienced a sudden game block and balance wipeout from Wild.io Casino, right when he was on the verge of meeting the bonus wagering requirements. The player was allegedly in violation of the Terms and Conditions, which led to the confiscation of all but the original deposit. The player had insisted that he adhered to all rules and provided all necessary documents for verification. After multiple exchanges, the casino completed the player's verification process and restored the confiscated winnings to the player's account. The player confirmed the receipt of his winnings, which resolved the complaint.

The player from Belarus had successfully completed the wager and requested a withdrawal. Despite having provided all required documents, undergone a Skype verification process, and maintained constant communication with the casino's support, his withdrawal request had remained pending for over 14 days. The player confirmed that he had made a deposit, played only slot games, and had no issues with the documents he had provided. After engaging with our complaints team, the player's issue was eventually resolved, and he received his money. The complaint was then marked as 'resolved' in our system.

The player from Estonia had lodged a complaint about his winnings being confiscated by Wild.io Casino after he had used their First Deposit Bonus. He had claimed that he had adhered to all the casino's rules and denied any rule-breaking. We had initiated a mediation process by communicating with both the casino and the player. The casino had provided evidence of the player's alleged rule-breaking, which we had found to be insufficient. The casino then had requested an identity verification process from the player, which he had complied with. Despite these efforts, the casino had not provided compelling evidence of rule-breaking, and we had not been able to influence the casino's decision. The complaint was marked as unresolved. We had advised the player to contact the Curacao Gaming Authority for further assistance. However, after reopening the complaint due to new information, the player had confirmed that his funds were returned and he had been able to withdraw them successfully. The complaint was then marked as resolved.

The player from the United States had been invited to a casino website with a referral offer. However, the casino had not honored the promised referral spins. The Complaints Team had extended the timer for response by 7 days, but due to a lack of response from the player, the complaint had been rejected. The team had been unable to proceed with further investigation or provide potential solutions without the player's communication.

The player from Georgia encountered issues with depositing money into the casino. He was informed that she fell below the minimum requirement, thus his deposit was lost in the blockchain. Despite the disagreement, the casino would not credit his account or allow her to speak to a manager. He feels that $5.49 was taken unjustly. The complaint was rejected as the player did not meet the requirements to deposit into the casino.

The player from Ireland had complained about Wild.io casino, stating that he had been blocked from the platform just as he was about to complete wagering requirements. The casino had then removed $20,000 from his balance, allowing him to withdraw only his original deposit. Wild.io had justified this action by claiming the player resided in a restricted territory, even though the player had provided proof of Irish residence. The player had questioned the transparency of the casino's terms and conditions regarding restricted territories. Despite the player's objections, the casino had remained firm on their decision. We had concluded the complaint as 'unresolved' due to the casino's refusal to pay out the player's winnings and the lack of clear communication regarding their terms and conditions. However, the complaint had later been reopened and marked as 'resolved' when the player informed us that Wild.io had paid out the full amount.

The player from Norway had encountered an issue with the casino, where his account had been disabled after he had wagered a bonus and won about $1900. The casino had vaguely cited a term breach as the reason, but the player had denied any wrongdoing. We intervened, reaching out to the casino and reviewing their evidence, which we had found insufficient to justify the confiscation of the player's winnings. Despite our efforts, the casino had only returned the player's initial deposit and requested additional verification. The complaint had been closed as unresolved due to the lack of proper evidence from the casino. We advised the player to contact the Curacao Gaming Authority for further assistance. Later, the complaint was reopened as the casino stated that the player's funds had been added back to their account. After the player had confirmed this and successfully withdrawn his winnings, the complaint was marked as resolved.

The player from Bosnia and Herzegovina deposited an amount below the minimum required into their casino account. Assistance from support didn't solve the issue and the player is seeking for credit or a refund. Since the casino clearly shows the minimum allowed deposit amount in the player's wallet, and the player nevertheless made a deposit below the limit, we rejected the complaint.

The player from Berlin is trying to close her account via chat and email, but has been unsuccessful and has not received a response despite multiple attempts. The complaint was closed as the player stopped responding.

The player from Georgia has been logged out of his account and cannot log back in due to a block. Despite several attempts to contact the casino via email, he has not received any response. He has approximately $3000 in winnings. We ended up rejecting the complaint because the casino provided evidence supporting its claims.

A player from Berlin expresses concerns about unfair gaming at Wild.io casino after not having a single scatter round despite making 10 significant deposits. He is requesting the operator be contacted and the casino be blacklisted. The complaint was closed as the player stopped responding.

The player from Austria deposited 12€ to the casino, but the transaction is lost because it did not meet the casino's minimum deposit amount. The casino responded that any funds sent under the minimum will not reach the player's balance and cannot be accessed. We closed this complaint as per the player’s request.

The player from the United States has experienced a technical problem while playing Roulette. The complaint was rejected as we did not receive any response from the player regarding our messages and inquiries.

The player from India has been blocked without further explanation. After a closer examination, we ended up rejecting this complaint as there is sufficient evidence the player has breached the casino's bonus terms and conditions by claiming multiple times bonuses that can be claimed only once.

The player's account got closed for unknown reason. Although it seems as though this issue has been resolved, the complaint was rejected because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player's winnings were voided for playing from a restricted country. The casino provided evidence showing that the player did not make any bets at the casino and also provided false information about which country they were registering from. The player's deposit was also returned to them. Based upon the evidence provided, the complaint was rejected.

The player from Austria had his account suspended and the winnings confiscated due to an accusation of developing betting strategies. After a closer examination, we ended up rejecting this complaint as unjustified.

The player from Poland has been accused of opening multiple accounts. The casino has sent us evidence that indicates creating multiple accounts but was still willing to offer more chances to the player to help them to verify, but the complaint was rejected because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Canada has experienced a technical glitch while playing slots. The issue was confirmed by the game provider and the player was compensated. However, now she requests a refund. After a closer examination, we ended up rejecting this complaint as unjustified.