This complaint had a lot of details where the player complained about a support team who had been rude to them. The player said the casino had called them and told them that there was no winning and that maybe their kids had lost the funds while they played with the phone. The casino never replied or showed any evidence to prove their accusations. As some issues were communicated through the phone, there was no evidence. An uncertain case, no response from the casino. Note: This complaint was filled during the previous owner’s era and since the casino has a new owner, it won't be accountable for it.

Karen complained about the casino's ethics. She said she was encouraged by the casino to play through the email and the support as well. This was hard to decide as it could have been just her personal feeling. She was able to play with the husband's account even though she had been self-excluded. It was definitely hard for the casino to identify a self-excluded player if they had used their husband's account. Later on, Karen contacted the bank and stated that those payments weren't authorized as the casino refused to pay the deposit back. The casino responded that if they were able to identify a self-excluded player, they would've immediately blocked the account. There is no further information about the outcome available. Note: This complaint was filled during the previous owner’s era and since the casino has a new owner, it won't be accountable for it.

Considering that the weekly withdrawal limit for this casino was €2,000, the player probably got his winning in payments. However, there are no further responses from the casino nor the player. We consider this likely paid. Note: This complaint was filled during the previous owner’s era and since the casino has a new owner, it won't be accountable for it.

The player showed an email from the casino that said they would not get their remaining balance of €1,805€. Reason for this was an accusation of breaching the terms and condition and using a peer2peer transfer between the Skrill accounts. The casino also wrote that they had employed or made use of an artificial intelligence or other systems. This was suspicious as the casino had paid most of their winning and then wrote this as a reason for not paying the remaining amount. This happened 6 months after the player was waiting for this payment to arrive. Ever since then, no evidence from the casino was shown. Note: This complaint was filled during the previous owner’s era and since the casino has a new owner, it won't be accountable for it.

This complaint stayed unresolved. There were few attempts to communicate this issue from the casino's side but there was no evidence or the reason given why the casino decided to return all deposits and not pay the winning too. The casino wrote they considered this as resolved as they returned all the deposits to the player's account. The winning simply vanished from the player's account and the only balance was a deposit of €400, which they could use again for playing or for a withdrawal. Insufficient evidence from the casino. Note: This complaint was filled during the previous owner’s era and since the casino has a new owner, it won't be accountable for it.

The player had asked for their deposit back after requesting a self-exclusion. They even contacted the UK gambling commission since they were playing in the UK. The casino reaction was insufficient and not relevant. We have no clue if the player received their money or not. Note: This complaint was filled during the previous owner’s era and since the casino has a new owner, it won't be accountable for it.

The casino refused to pay the player's winning. The player was firstly accused of a linking to another account which they proved they were not. Later on, they accused them of using the pattern to ensure themselves a winning. The player proved that they had won with his 3rd deposit and were not using any pattern. The evidence from the casino was insufficient. We consider accusing the players of different terms and conditions being breached with no evidence as highly unprofessional and unethical. The complaint stayed unresolved. Note: This complaint was filled during the previous owner’s era and since the casino has a new owner, it won't be accountable for it.