SuperLenny Casinoのレビュー

The player, James deposited £547 and won £3,587 in total. He wanted to request a withdrawal but learned that his account had been closed because he had previously closed an account at the casino's sister casino, Thrills. The casino said that the player had self-excluded himself from the sister casino, now claiming it was a different casino, Kaboo. The player said that he closed his account and provided evidence that he had received advertisements from Kaboo casino, which shouldn't happen to self-excluded people. After some back-and-forth discussion, the casino hadn't provided enough evidence to support their claims of self-exclusion of the player and the complaint stays unresolved.

The player, Iand, complained that he wanted to deposit £20 but deposited £100 by mistake. He contacted the live support and asked for a refund. However, his account got closed and when he asked for a reason, the live support replied to him that he had self-excluded himself from a sister casino site. He asked why his account hadn't been closed in the past eight months or why they had accepted his deposit. The casino then replied in the complaint that his deposit would be returned to him. There is no more information on this case available.

The player, Pandrop22, won and submitted a withdrawal for £1,400 and kept playing with his remaining balance. He was disconnected from the site and when he tried to log back in, he failed and when he tried to reset his password, he couldn't get a proper response from the support. After that, he got refunded £400 (assumed to be his deposit) and was told that his account had been closed because of a previous self-exclusion in a sister casino, Kaboo. The player said he merely closed his account there because of his losses and didn't self-exclude himself. The casino told him to forward it to an authority and that they wouldn't continue in the discussion.

The player played with a bonus and managed to complete the wagering requirements with €5,700 in total winning and sent his documents for verification. About two weeks later he received an e-mail about his account being suspended due to the evidence showing his account used the same IP address as the accounts which breached the terms and conditions of the casino. The player denied these claims and the casino replied that there's nothing more they could do and he should contact MGA if he wanted to pursue this further. There is no more information provided.