Yabby Casino Review

The player from California had issues with withdrawing his winnings from an online casino, despite his account being verified. The casino had not responded to his inquiries. We asked the player for additional details to investigate further, and extended the response deadline by 7 days. However, the player did not respond to our queries. As a result, we were unable to further investigate and were compelled to reject the complaint.

The player from Colorado had his withdrawal request of over $100 denied by the online casino due to accusations of operating multiple accounts and using numerous bonuses, which was against the casino's terms and conditions. The player had denied these accusations, claiming he had only used one account. Despite his attempts to communicate with the casino, he had been ignored and his account had been blocked. Upon investigation by the Complaints Team, evidence provided by the casino confirmed the player had multiple accounts. As a result, we had concluded that the casino's actions were justified and the player's complaint was rejected.

The player from Washington had their withdrawal voided after they allegedly played a restricted game, Blackjack, at Yabby casino. However, the player maintained that the game was played after completing the bonus terms, and thus should have been permissible. The player appealed this decision. The casino initially claimed that the player had multiple accounts and had played restricted games during bonus play. After reviewing the case, the casino decided to return the player's winnings as an exception. The player was asked to provide necessary documents for account verification. The casino confirmed that the winnings of $50 were returned to the player's account. The player did not respond to confirm receipt of the winnings and if this was considered an acceptable resolution, leading to the complaint being rejected due to lack of response.

The player from Ohio had been blocked from his casino account following a delay in the withdrawal process despite having met the playthrough requirements. Despite multiple attempts, the casino had not responded to his inquiries, wouldn't discuss the issue or return his deposit. The player confirmed that he had previously passed the KYC verification and had been regularly playing and withdrawing funds. He played slots to meet the bonus requirements. After the intervention of the Complaints Team, the casino acknowledged an error on their end, reactivated the player's account, and processed his withdrawal of $621.15. The player confirmed the receipt of his payout, and the complaint was marked as resolved.

The player from Sweden had his account blocked by YabbyCasino due to an accusation of owning multiple accounts, a claim the player had disputed. Despite multiple emails that had been sent seeking clarification and offering proof, he had received no response. The player had insisted that no one else from his household had a casino account and that he had won his earnings through a non-deposit bonus. After reviewing the case and contacting the casino, we found that the casino had substantial evidence of the player having violated their Terms and Conditions by creating multiple accounts. Despite the player's denial, we, as an independent entity, had agreed with the casino's decision based on the provided evidence. The player's winnings had been voided, however, his account had remained active for future deposits.

The player from the US had experienced issues with a withdrawal. After completing a $1,600 withdrawal and receiving a verification complete notice, the money had unexpectedly returned to the player's account. The player had not been notified about the cancellation of his withdrawal and mistakenly believed the money was winnings from a slot game. He ended up depleting his account balance, thinking that his withdrawal was still pending. After reviewing the case, we had concluded that the complaint was unjustified, as the player should have noticed the significant increase in his balance. Therefore, the complaint was rejected.

The player from Washington had been attempting to verify his account, but the documents had not been approved. After waiting for over three weeks, he was informed that his winnings had been removed due to multiple accounts from the same IP address. The player denied having multiple accounts with the same casino. The casino had provided evidence indicating that the player had the same phone number and IP address as another user who had taken advantage of No-deposit bonuses, which was against their terms and conditions. The player did not respond to these allegations, leading us to close the complaint as unjustified since the casino had acted in accordance with its terms and conditions.

The player from the US was facing a delay in the verification process of his ID, which was preventing him from making a withdrawal. He had submitted his ID for verification three days prior and had not received any update from the casino. The Complaints Team had extended the timer for response by seven days, but due to a lack of further communication from the player, the complaint was ultimately rejected. The player, however, retained the option to reopen this complaint in the future.

The player from Florida, who used cryptocurrency for transactions, attempted to withdraw her winnings but was asked for verification despite an email that stated depositors did not need verification. She confirmed that she had uploaded all necessary verification documents. However, due to her lack of response to further queries from the Complaints Team, we were unable to proceed with the investigation. The issue remained unresolved as the complaint was eventually rejected due to the player's non-responsiveness.

The player from the United States deposited $55, won over $2500, and attempted to withdraw. However, his account was restricted on the grounds of multiple account ownership. The player struggles with completing verification due to being unable to log in for verification.

A player from Tennessee discovered her underage children created multiple duplicate accounts at Yabby Casino without her knowledge, using $745 from her funds. The player asked the casino to close these accounts and refund the money.

The user from South Africa was unable to withdraw winnings or make a deposit due to a requirement for an account verification form. Despite reaching out, the casino did not provide this form. The user had also mentioned issues with a minimum limit on cryptocurrency transactions. We attempted to assist the player, however, due to the user's lack of response, we were unable to investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from the United States had experienced a delay in his account verification process with Yabby Casino, which had lasted for two weeks. He had submitted all the necessary documents, including his ID and a selfie holding his ID. The Complaints Team had intervened by contacting the casino to expedite the process. The casino had responded, confirming that the player's account had been fully verified and his first withdrawal had been processed successfully. The player had confirmed receipt of his payment, and the issue had been marked as resolved.

The player from the United States has uploaded the necessary verification documents to Yabby Casino but has not yet been verified. He communicated with the casino through live chat and was informed that there was no specific timeframe for this process. He has $50 to redeem.

The player from New York had a problem withdrawing $106.61 from Yabby Casino, the winnings from a $50 deposit. Despite having played through the required playthrough balance, the casino denied the request, stating the player didn't meet the withdrawal requirement. After the Complaints Team explained that the player had used a sticky bonus, which couldn't be withdrawn without sufficient balance according to the casino's terms and conditions, the player understood the situation. The player did not require further assistance, leading us to mark the complaint as resolved.

The player from South Africa had completed the account verification process and attempted to withdraw his winnings but was asked to make a verification deposit of R200. Due to unemployment, he was unsure when he could have made the required deposit. He had been trying to claim his winnings for nearly a month. The Complaints Team had explained that the deposit was necessary to verify the payment provider. The player had acknowledged this and indicated he would attempt to make the deposit. However, the player did not provide further updates, which led to the complaint being rejected due to lack of response.

The player from the US had deposited 250 USD into his 'Yabby' casino account using BTC. The transaction had been confirmed but the casino claimed it was cancelled and support was no longer responding to his queries. The player had been provided with a unique wallet for the transaction. It hadn't been his first deposit at the casino. The casino eventually credited his account, and he attempted to withdraw the funds. However, he had played through the funds due to a 1x wagering requirement and lost the deposit. We had advised the player to contact us promptly in future issues. We were unable to assist further as the player had played through his funds. The complaint was rejected as the player remained dissatisfied despite the deposit being credited eventually.

The player from South Africa had requested a withdrawal from Yabby Casino a month ago but had not received his funds. He had provided all required documents for verification, however, the casino had informed him that due to the quality of the submitted photos and the age of his ID, positive identification and therefore account verification was not possible. The casino had requested new documents for the verification process. We had advised the player to proceed with the casino's request, but he failed to respond to our messages. Consequently, we had to reject the complaint due to lack of further information from the player.

The US-based player, who had won $730, faced withdrawal issues. After she made a verification deposit of $10 as required by the casino, only $50 was left in her account. According to the casino's support, the maximum cashout for a promotional offer was $50. We had attempted to resolve the issue by asking the player some clarifying questions and extending the response deadline twice. However, due to the player's lack of response, we were unable to proceed with the investigation or provide a solution and thus had to reject the complaint.

A player from California is dealing with two issues: not receiving a 55% promo due to an alleged $100 minimum deposit that is not mentioned in the ad, and a disappearing $1300 winnings from a game after wagering from free spins. The player argues that the earnings were accumulated legitimately. After we attempted to request further information from the player, the player stopped responding and therefore the complaint was rejected.

The player from the United States is unable to verify her account for the withdrawal. Despite sending documents three times, the casino has yet to complete the verification process. In the end, the player decided not to finish the verification and closed her account. This complaint was closed accordingly.

The player from Colorado had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. The payment hadn't been processed yet. After the player's multiple attempts to communicate with the casino and provide necessary documents, the issue had remained unresolved. However, the player later confirmed that the payout was finally received. We marked the complaint as resolved following the successful payout.

The player from Indiana had won $1,400 at the online casino and attempted to withdraw $900. After successful verification, the casino had alleged that another account was linked to the player's personal details. The player had disputed the casino's claims but failed to provide further details despite our team's repeated requests for information. As a result, we were unable to proceed with the investigation and had to reject the complaint.

The player from the United States had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks before he submitted this complaint. His money had not been received at that point. The player had been unable to log into his account, even though he had been verified and had withdrawn funds previously. After the Complaints Team had extended the resolution period and suggested that the player contact the casino directly, the player had informed them that the casino had paid him. The delay had been due to the casino's need to verify his identity. The issue had been resolved successfully and the complaint had been marked as 'resolved' by the Complaints Team.

The player from the United States had his accounts frozen in two casinos, Limitless and Yabby, which were operated by the same owners. The player was in an ongoing dispute with Limitless over an unverified account and unpaid winnings, and he believed his Yabby account was consequently frozen without any communication. He reported that he hadn't received any explanation from Yabby Casino about the account freeze. He also confirmed that he didn't have any pending withdrawals or bonuses with Yabby. Despite his attempts to communicate with the casino's management, he didn't receive any response. We had reviewed the case and found that the casino reserved the right to terminate a player's account as per their terms and conditions. Since the player didn't have any remaining balance to withdraw, we concluded that we couldn't assist further in this case.

The Player from Texas is having issues with account verification at the Casino. Despite submitting the required documents over 9 days ago, the player hasn't received any response or confirmation about their review. The player is unable to withdraw and expressed concern about the communication process. Player stopped responding to our question therefore the complaint was rejected.

The player from Alabama had been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, her payout had not been received yet. The Complaints Team had advised her that withdrawals often took several days or weeks to process and could be delayed due to KYC verification or a high volume of withdrawal requests. They suggested she waited at least 14 days after requesting the withdrawal before submitting a complaint. However, the player did not respond to further inquiries, resulting in the rejection of the complaint due to lack of cooperation.

The player from Thailand had faced issues with account verification at an online casino, which had caused a delay in his withdrawal of $103. After he had submitted all required documents for KYC verification, the player was informed by the casino's banking department that the data did not match their account. The player had then forwarded all documents to the Complaints Team. After a thorough review, it had been suggested that the player might need to submit translated versions of his documents. Eventually, the casino had approved the player's account, resolving the issue. The player had expressed satisfaction with the resolution and the complaint had been marked as 'resolved'.

The player from Texas had reported an issue with Yabby Casino concerning a small Ethereum deposit that had not been credited to his account. Despite his attempts to resolve the issue through customer support, it had remained unresolved. We had reached out to the player for more information and extended the response time by 7 days. However, due to the lack of response from the player, we were unable to proceed with the investigation. Therefore, the complaint was rejected.

The player from Colorado had raised concerns about the fairness of the casino's games. He had noticed a pattern where he tended to win large amounts during free spins, which had a capped cash-out limit, but consistently lost when making regular deposits. The player believed his account might have been manipulated and had threatened to take legal action unless a refund was made. However, we had communicated to the player that without concrete evidence, such as a complete gaming history, we could not confront the casino. Despite extending the time for the player to provide this information, we had not received a response, leading to the dismissal of the complaint.

The player from the United States requested a withdrawal of $50 after using free spins and meeting the wagering requirements. The player was told the withdrawal was declined due to unmet wagering limits, but the player did not receive any communication about the decline. This is the second time such an issue has occurred at the casino. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Indiana had encountered issues with an online casino after using a no deposit bonus and winning $1300. His attempts to withdraw his winnings had been declined, with the casino stating he hadn't made a deposit, despite him having done so after account verification. The casino had insisted that the player's winnings were capped at $50 due to the terms of the bonus he used. The player had disputed this, stating he had won the $1300 after making a deposit and playing without a bonus code. The casino maintained its stance, but had agreed to implement changes to prevent such issues in the future. The player's withdrawal request had eventually been processed, but he did not confirm receipt of the payment. The Complaints Team had concluded the issue as unresolved but acknowledged that the casino had acted within its terms.

The player from Kentucky had completed playthrough requirements for a no deposit bonus and tried to withdraw a balance of $31.40, but was stopped because of a $50 minimum withdrawal. Despite meeting requirements, the player is unable to cashout due to the minimum withdrawal limit. The complaint was rejected as the player stopped responding.

The player from Texas had submitted a withdrawal request less than two weeks prior to contacting us. Winnings hadn't been obtained up to that day. We had advised the player to wait at least 14 days after requesting the withdrawal before submitting a complaint, as delays could have been due to unfinished KYC verification or high volume of withdrawal requests. However, the player did not respond to our follow-up messages. As a result, we could not investigate the issue further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Mexico has been denied his winnings of $1500. Due to the Casino's website being blocked in Mexico, he used a VPN to access and play. The account was closed when the casino noticed the country change and refused to pay out, despite the fact he's a verified customer in their casino group. Since the player used false information in his account, we rejected the complaint. The complaint was reopened at the request of the player. After reviewing the case, the casino decided that they could make an exception for this player as they had been able to match the details at a partner casino. The player then received their payment and the case was resolved.

The player from the United States is facing an issue with depositing and withdrawing funds from Yabby casino. It has been 5 days and the account verification is still pending. Player stopped responding to our question therefore the complaint was rejected.

The player from South Africa has been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, their payout hasn’t been received yet. The player stopped responding to our questions and comments, so we rejected the complaint.

The player from Indiana is having issues with Yabby Casino. After winning $50.00 on a bonus, she attempted to withdraw her winnings using Bitcoin. Despite being told verification wouldn't be necessary for Bitcoin withdrawals, and waiting longer than the stated 3-5 days for account verification, she still hasn't received her winnings. The complaint was rejected because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Mississippi requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. The payment hasn’t been processed yet. The player later confirmed that the withdrawal was processed successfully, therefore we marked this complaint as resolved.

The player from Mississippi is facing issues with cryptocurrency withdrawal. After winning $609 and attempting to withdraw $300, the casino rejected the request, insisting the entire amount needs to be withdrawn. The player has previously been able to withdraw partial amounts and is confused about the sudden change in policy. Player’s complaint has been resolved successfully.

The player from Florida played Fortunate Buddha and won $140, which wasn't added to her balance. Customer service disconnected her twice and denied her win. She has sent an email but doesn't expect a positive response. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't have sufficient evidence to support this case, so she decided to close it.

The player from the United States won money from free spins and was told that depositing would exempt them from verifying their account. However, after making the deposit, their account verification status still shows pending. When inquiring about it, the casino states that their accounting department needs to handle it. Since the player did not respond to any of our questions, we had to reject the complaint.

The player from the United States recently tried this online casino but faced issues with redeeming the $70 welcome chip and receiving conflicting instructions. Despite completing 50 free spins as advised, they were denied the welcome bonus. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from British Columbia activated a bonus. Later he couldn't withdraw his winnings and the casino informed him that the bonus is not redeemable. We ended up rejecting the complaint as the player's winnings weren't sufficient to deduct the sticky bonus.

The player from South Africa requested a withdrawal about three weeks ago. Unfortunately, she has not yet received her winnings as her account is not verified. Player has stopped responding after being accused of creating multiple accounts.

The player from the United States had his account blocked without further explanation. We closed the complaint as resolved after the player's confirmation that their account had been verified and funds successfully withdrawn.

The player from the US is experiencing difficulties withdrawing his winnings due to ongoing verification. The player later admitted to creating more than one account at this casino, therefore, we were forced to reject this complaint.

The player from the US is experiencing difficulties withdrawing his winnings from the casino. We closed the complaint because the player stopped responding. The player requested that the complaint be reopened, stating that the withdrawal request had been canceled but the funds were not returned to their account. The casino provided evidence showing that the players funds had been returned to the account, and the player had continued to play until the balance had been spent. Consequently, there was nothing further that could be achieved and the complaint was rejected.

The player from the US is dissatisfied that her account wasn't closed in the past. Unfortunately, the player didn't provide the self-exclusion request. We couldn't proceed without this essential evidence, therefore we were forced to close the complaint.

The player from the United States is complaining about the lengthy verification process. A week after submitting the complaint, the player informed us that their account was finally verified and the winnings withdrawn, so we closed the complaint as resolved.

The player from the US had his winnings from a no-deposit bonus confiscated. We ended up rejecting the complaint because the casino provided evidence supporting its claims of mixing bonus funds with real money.

The player from the US is experiencing difficulties withdrawing his winnings due to ongoing verification. 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 from Italy was informed that he cannot withdraw winnings from a bonus that was used more than once. The player stated that the bonus had been credited to them automatically, but the casino provided evidence showing that the player had requested the bonus on multiple occasions. It is also clearly stated in the terms of the bonus that you can only make one withdrawal from this promotion. Consequently, the complaint was rejected.

The player from the United States has been accused of opening multiple accounts. The casino provided us with the data confirming these accusations. However, the complaint was rejected because the player stopped responding to our messages and questions when we tried to ask for further details to clarify the situation.

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

The player could not withdraw his winnings because the casino did not allow him to verify. The player registered 2 accounts in the casino. The complaint was rejected because the player lost his disputed funds by playing in the casino.

The player from Pennsylvania has requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. The payment hasn’t been processed yet. The complaint was rejected because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from the United States has been accused of opening multiple accounts. After gathering all the provided information and details, the complaint was closed as unjustified due to a breach of the casino's terms and conditions and bonus terms and conditions. The complainant abused the casino's bonus offer by using the same no-deposit bonus more than once. The casino acted correctly and within its terms and conditions. The player is not entitled to any winnings obtained from this bonus.

The player from New York has requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. The payment hasn’t been processed yet. The player later confirmed that the withdrawal was processed successfully, therefore we marked this complaint as resolved.

The player from the United States was accused of opening multiple accounts. The casino has informed us that after reviewing the player's issue, all restrictions have been removed from his account. We consider the complaint resolved.

The player from Italy has been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, their payout hasn’t been received yet. The complaint was rejected because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player's balance was voided for having multiple accounts. The casino responded and provided sufficient evidence supporting the player's use of multiple accounts and bonuses. Consequently, the complaint was rejected.

The player from North Rhine-Westphalia has submitted a withdrawal request less than two weeks prior to contacting us. Winnings haven’t been obtained up to this day. The complaint was rejected because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from US is dissatisfied with the reward system. We decided to reject this case because casinos are free to decide which bonuses will be offered as a part of the reward system, and who is eligible for them.

The player's winnings were voided due to playing restricted games. The casino responded to say that the matter had been resolved with the player, but there was no confirmation from the player so the complaint was rejected.

The player from United States has opened an account and placed a deposit. Subsequently, the casino blocked the account without a further explanation. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Canada had faced difficulties with his withdrawals at an online casino. After a net win of $2050, his attempts to contact the casino had been ignored, and he had expressed concerns about their customer support and contrasting ratings. We had recommended patience and cooperation with the casino's processes, which can sometimes cause delays. Eventually, the casino had sent the player his winnings, but he remained dissatisfied due to losses he attributed to the casino's inefficiency. The complaint was then marked as resolved.

The player from Brazil had experienced difficulty withdrawing his winnings from an online casino, despite having submitted all necessary verification documents. The casino had promised to resolve the issue within 24 hours, but had failed to do so. The player had made two deposits and used a welcome bonus, and had fulfilled the wagering requirements. Despite this, the casino had continually refused his withdrawal requests. After the player's complaint, the issue had been resolved.

The player from Mississippi was disputing a claim made by the casino that they exceeded the maximum bet amount allowed while playing with a bonus. The player insisted the maximum they bet was 5 dollars and did not believe that they bet 32 dollars as claimed by the casino. The player did not have access to the full game history and aimed to resolve this issue. After reviewing all the provided details from the casino, it was confirmed that the player indeed exceeded the maximum bet, however, it seems it was a one-time and/or unintentional violation. The casino was able and willing to reconsider its original decision and offered the player the reimbursement of the disputed winnings decreased by the sum of the bonus amount since it was not withdrawable, his deposit put into play, and the winnings accumulated from the forbidden bet. The complainant consequently accepted the casino's offer and has already confirmed a successful withdrawal. The complaint is resolved.

The player from the United States was in the middle of a slot game when her phone’s battery died. When she returned to the game, she found out that her winnings were gone. After investigating the issue, we had to wait for a full report from the game provider, but as this takes a lot of time, the casino decided to provide an offer to the player as compensation for the inconvenience, which was accepted by the player. Since both parties were able to reach a consensus and the agreed offer was credited to the player successfully, we consider this complaint to be resolved.

The player from Poland tried to withdraw winnings accumulated with free spins, but the casino accused him of creating multiple accounts. After the player's account had been successfully verified and the winnings reinstated, the player confirmed the case was resolved.

The player from the US had an issue with Casino Extreme after his winnings had been removed due to the casino's claim of multiple registrations from the same IP address. The player had disputed this, stating that he was the only one using his account from his current and previous addresses. After he had provided all the necessary information and evidence, we had contacted the casino to clarify the situation. The casino then requested additional documents from the player, which were provided. After review, the casino had verified the player's account and reimbursed his winnings. The player had also been informed about the industry-standard requirement of a verification deposit for withdrawal of winnings from a no-deposit bonus. The player had made the deposit and was able to redeem his winnings. The player had confirmed the resolution of the issue.

The player from Alberta had his account at Casino Extreme closed due to the casino's allegations of bonus abuse. Although he initially requested the account closure, the player had decided to revisit the casino. Unable to access his old account, he had created a new one and deposited funds. The casino had asked for re-verification, which he completed, but the casino had refused to return his deposit. After a series of communications with our team, the player had resolved the issue on his own. We had expressed our contentment over the successful resolution and reminded him of our constant availability for assistance with any future issues.

The player from Canada had expressed frustration after he had deposited a total of $2050 on three different occasions without any credits to his casino account. He had disputed the casino's claim that they had received the payment but made an error in crediting his account. The player had provided proof and insisted that the casino should have borne the responsibility for any system bug. However, he later informed that the dispute had been settled. We had marked the complaint as resolved and thanked the player for his cooperation.

The player from Arizona experienced promotional issues as Casino Extreme, despite advertising a "fortnightly bonus," hasn't honored it for the month and has not provided clear information regarding the delay. The complaint was resolved as the bonus was credited to the player.

The player from Washington had encountered a deposit error on the casino site where her $35 deposit had been deducted from her card but a JavaScript error occurred. The casino's customer service had not been helpful in resolving the issue. After she contacted her payment provider as suggested by our team, the issue was resolved and the deposit was credited to her casino account. The player had expressed dissatisfaction with the casino's overall service but confirmed that the deposit issue was resolved. We had marked the complaint as resolved in our system.

The player from the US had experienced difficulties with a cryptocurrency deposit at an online casino. Despite having paid an extra fee for expedited processing, the deposit had taken 24 hours instead of the promised 2 hours. Moreover, the player had been unable to withdraw their winnings due to their balance being below the casino's minimum withdrawal limit. After the player had communicated their issues, the casino had resolved the problems to the player's satisfaction. The complaint was subsequently marked as 'resolved'.

The player from the United States had completed the play-through requirements but his withdrawal request had been denied by the online casino. The casino had requested documentation for verification, which the player had contested due to his use of cryptocurrency for depositing. However, we had clarified that KYC procedures were still applicable even with cryptocurrency deposits. The player later confirmed that the casino had paid him, resolving the issue.

The player from the United States had deposited the equivalent of $20 in Litecoin at Brango Casino to activate a birthday bonus. However, the casino had claimed that he had deposited $19.99, making him ineligible for the bonus. The player had sought either a refund of his deposit or the activation of the bonus. After he submitted a complaint, the casino had reached out to the player, apologized for the situation, and added the bonus to his account. This resolution had led to the closure of the complaint.

The player from California had submitted a withdrawal request less than two weeks before he contacted us, but hadn't received his winnings yet. After we advised him to be patient, cooperate with the casino, and wait at least 14 days after requesting the withdrawal before submitting a complaint, the player confirmed that his issue had been resolved. We then marked the complaint as 'resolved' in our system.

The player from Indiana had experienced a delay in account verification and a payout of $50, which had been requested on October 26th, 2023. Despite reaching out daily to the casino, he hadn't received any response. We had explained the importance of the KYC process and asked for details about the documents he had provided. The player later confirmed that the casino had paid him, and we marked the issue as resolved.

The player from Texas had met the wagering requirements for their bonus and left a substantial balance. Subsequently, they initiated a withdrawal which was voided by the casino, citing restricted game play as the reason, a violation the player denies having committed.

The player from Ontario had requested a withdrawal but hadn't received his winnings. We had suggested that he waited at least 14 days after requesting the withdrawal before filing a complaint. If his account had been verified, his game history checked, and his withdrawal approved by the casino. The player eventually received the withdrawal, and the complaint had been consequently marked as resolved.

The player from the United States completed many formalities and requirements for account verification, aiming for cryptocurrency withdrawal. However, the casino declined the withdrawal, and the player’s bonus of $156 was found to be non-withdrawable. After increasing the winnings to $400 and attempting withdrawal, the casino voided the winnings, leaving a balance of $29.99.

The player from Canada had encountered issues with the KYC process at an online casino. Despite having submitted the necessary documents for account verification three weeks prior, he hadn't received any confirmation. The situation had escalated when the casino deducted $130 from his account, leaving only $50, and cancelled his $180 withdrawal request citing verification issues. The casino had stated that only $50 could be withdrawn from bonus winnings. After reviewing the casino's bonus terms and conditions, we had confirmed this rule. The player had eventually accepted this explanation, and the complaint had been marked as resolved.

The player from Texas has been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, their payout hasn’t been received yet. the casino responded and explained that the winnings had been confisctaed due to the player depositing before completing the wagering requirements of an active bonus, and playing with 'mixed funds'. Upon further review, the casino decided to make an exception in this case and return the winnings to the player, as no unfair advantage had been gained on this occasion. Consequently, the complaint was closed as 'resolved'.

The Utah player faced difficulties in withdrawing her winnings because according to the casino, she played restricted games with a bonus. Since the restricted games were played after the bonus was wagered, the bonus conditions should no longer have been applicable. Consequently, the casino ultimately decided to pay the player their legitimate winnings.

The player from the United States is experiencing difficulties withdrawing her winnings due to ongoing verification. After the player's account had been successfully verified, the player confirmed receipt of the payment.

The player from the United States has been accused of breaking the T&Cs by playing a restricted game while completing bonus wagering. After contacting the casino and their explanation, both parties agreed on a satisfactory solution. The player confirmed the complaint was resolved.

The player struggled to verify his card as the casino was non responsive. After submitting the complaint, the casino got in touch with the player, his card was verified and the winnings were paid out after a month of waiting.

The player from the US experiences difficulties with his bitcoin deposit in the casino. The player confirmed the deposit was credited to his casino account after the casino was given proof of the transaction.

The player from the US had their winnings confiscated after the casino accused him of breaking the bonus terms and conditions. After contacting the casino and their explanation, both parties agreed on a satisfactory solution. Based on the circumstances, we consider the complaint resolved.

The player from South Africa was experiencing complications verifying the email address and completing account verification. After following the casino's instructions, the withdrawal was completely processed. The complaint is resolved.

The player from the United States had experienced a delay with the casino's verification process, which had prolonged the timeline for his withdrawal. He had felt that the casino's support was unresponsive and ineffective. After the player had submitted his complaint, we intervened and contacted the casino. The casino had responded that the quality of the documents provided by the player was insufficient for verification. After the player had resubmitted the required documents, his account was successfully verified. He was then able to proceed with his withdrawal. The issue had been resolved to the player's satisfaction.

The player from the US had experienced a delay in his account verification process at an online casino, which had taken two weeks instead of the stated 3-5 days. After his account had been verified, he had encountered issues with cashing out his winnings. However, the situation had been resolved after his communication with the casino and the player had confirmed that his problem was solved. The complaint was subsequently marked as 'resolved' by us.

The player from Virginia had been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, her payout had not been received yet. After the Complaints Team advised her to be patient and wait for at least 14 days after requesting the withdrawal, she confirmed that she had received her winnings. We then marked the complaint as 'resolved'.

The player from California had had a balance dispute with Limitless Casino due to a misunderstanding about the terms of a sticky bonus. The player had believed he had met the wagering requirements and was eligible to withdraw his winnings. However, the casino had claimed the player still owed the bonus amount. The player had also been unhappy about the casino's refusal to verify his documents and imposition of a withdrawal charge. After our team had explained the terms and conditions of the sticky bonus, the player had managed to increase his balance and make a successful withdrawal. The issue had been resolved to the player's satisfaction.

The player from Ontario had expressed frustration due to a delay in her account verification process despite having submitted the necessary documents 5 days prior. However, the issue had been resolved and her account was verified, which enabled her to make a withdrawal. An additional requirement, which was a $10 deposit. The Complaints Team had marked the issue as 'resolved' following the successful resolution.

The player from North Carolina has made several attempts to withdraw her $50.00 from Limitless Casino but keeps getting redirected. Despite following all required steps, including depositing more than the required amount, providing all verification details and contacting several email addresses provided by the casino, she's not received her money.

The player from the United States was facing issues with account access and withdrawal of $100 due to alleged multiple accounts. Despite sending verification documents as requested, there was no update or acknowledgement from the support team, and communication was ceased. Later, after the discussion with the casino, as an exception, its decision was reconsidered, and the casino successfully paid out the disputed winnings to the player's payment method. Basically, once he provided the casino with the requested documents, the payment was processed almost immediately.

The player from Massachusetts had contested a dispute with Limitless Casino. After using a coupon, which restricted games to non-progressive slots, Keno, and Video Poker, the player claimed they had unintentionally violated the casino's Terms and Conditions by playing Black Jack when the game became available. Despite initially approving the withdrawal, the casino had voided the player's $1500 winnings, returning only their $50 deposit due to the violation of terms. After reviewing the case, we had reached out to the casino and they agreed to return the winnings that had been acquired prior to the player starting to play Blackjack, which was restricted by the bonus terms. The total amount of $1,314.38 had been reimbursed to the player's account and was only eligible for withdrawal. The player had confirmed receipt of the funds and requested a payout, marking the resolution of the issue.

The player from Thailand was advised to use VPN due to access issues, which led to a deposit under a USA IP. After winning $1,500, he attempted to update his country for withdrawal but has been denied by the casino. Despite sending required documents, the casino has ceased communication. The casino replied and stated that the player's documents had been found in the casino's spam folder and so had not been seen by the verification team. The documents were reviewed and the player's verification was completed. After some further problems with the player's withdrawal request, the withdrawal was processed and the player received their payment. Consequently, the complaint was closed as 'resolved'.

The player from the United States registered with Limitless Casino and after winning, tried to verify their account to withdraw funds. Despite the assurance of verification within five business days, it has now been three weeks with no progress and repetitive responses from the casino. The issue with verification has been resolved successfully.

The player from Florida deposited bitcoins and was told that their account would be automatically verified. After losing the deposit, they fulfilled the playthrough requirements on 20 Free Spins. However, now the casino is requesting account verification. Player’s complaint has been resolved successfully.

The player from Arizona deposited $198 and claimed a bonus, which initially had a maximum cashout of 10 times the deposit. He won $3200, but the balance reduced to $1980 in line with the initial term. The casino altered this term later to limit cashout to 5 times the deposit. They are now willing to pay him $991, applying the new term retroactively.

The player from the United States has been trying to get verified by Limitless Casino for nearly two months. They have sent the verification form multiple times, followed the customer support's recommendation to provide additional photos, and sent numerous emails, but have not received any response. The issue has been resolved successfully.

The player struggled to withdraw his winnings due ongoing verification. We contacted the casino and received a reply, where they explained that the player needed to make a verification deposit after playing with free spins bonus. The player promised to make one, and later informed us that she successfully received her winnings, so we closed the complaint as resolved.

The player from the United States has requested a withdrawal a few hours prior to submitting this complaint. Simply, winnings haven’t been received yet. Player’s complaint has been resolved successfully.

The player's winnings were voided for breaching the casino terms. After contacting the casino and their explanation, both parties agreed on a satisfactory solution. The player confirmed the complaint was resolved.

The player from the United States requested a withdrawal two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. Unfortunately, the winnings haven’t been received yet. The casino did not respond to this complaint, so it was closed as 'unresolved'. Following the casino's request to reopen the complaint, we reached out to the player and requested their confirmation of payment receipt. The casino had assured us that the payment had already been processed. Despite receiving no response from the player, we deemed the complaint as resolved, based on the detailed information provided by the casino.