Coins.Game Casino Review

The player from Germany encountered an issue with a deposit made via coins.game on December 2nd, which had not been credited due to a system error, despite the funds arriving in his player wallet. He had reached out to support for help but had not received any assistance. The Complaints Team advised him to contact his payment provider for further investigation, which was a complicated process that could take about a month. Ultimately, the player confirmed that he had received the money, leading to the complaint being marked as resolved.

The player from British Columbia had successfully cashed out once but encountered issues when attempting to withdraw a larger amount of 100 LTC. After providing the requested proof of address, the player suddenly became unable to log in and was informed that their account had been blocked due to allegations of cheating, which they denied. The Complaints Team had communicated with the casino and discovered that the player did not pass verification due to inadequate proof of address, specifically a document that lacked a date. Despite suggesting that the player be given another chance to submit correct documentation, the casino declined and provided rude responses. As a result, the complaint was closed as unresolved, and the casino was penalized in the Safety Index. Some time later, the casino has reached out to the Complaints Team and confirmed that they would give the player one more chance. After successfully passing verification and receiving the withdrawal, player confirmed that the complaint is resolved.

The player from Germany reported an issue where a €20 bet unexpectedly increased to €70 without manual input. They expressed concern over potential software errors and believed the casino was deliberately manipulating outcomes. The Complaints Team attempted to investigate the issue by requesting additional details from the player but ultimately had to reject the case due to a lack of response. Consequently, no further investigation or solutions were provided.

The player from Australia had not received credited winnings of $104 from their account after playing with a bonus of $80. The complaint was rejected due to the player's lack of response to the team's requests for further information, which prevented any further investigation into the issue.

The player from Germany had self-excluded from the casino but had successfully created a new account and made a deposit. They requested a refund and emphasized that the casino should have prevented players from creating new accounts after self-exclusion. The Complaints Team reviewed the player's communication and determined that there was no explicit mention of gambling addiction as the reason for self-exclusion in the requests made. Consequently, the request for a refund of deposits was not supported, and the complaint was rejected due to a breach of the casino's Terms and Conditions regarding multiple accounts.

The player from Brazil had requested a withdrawal prior to submitting this complaint. Unfortunately, his winnings had not been received yet. The Complaints Team had extended the investigation period but ultimately had to reject the complaint due to the player's lack of response, which prevented further investigation into the issue. The player had the option to reopen the complaint at any time.

The player from Brazil had completed a rollover requirement after winning $998 from free spins but received only $1,000 instead of the expected $4,200. Based on the casino's terms, the maximum withdrawal should have been 10 times the bonus winnings, which would have amounted to $9,980. The player possessed screenshots to support their claim. The complaint was reviewed, and the casino provided evidence of failed verification, leading to the rejection of the player's complaint.

The player from Brazil faced issues with withdrawing 1 BTC from the Mines game at Coins.game, as his bet remained locked despite his visible winnings. He had previously made successful withdrawals and sought assistance after receiving no responses from support regarding his locked bet and initial 0.12 BTC. The Complaints Team communicated with the casino, which claimed there were discrepancies in the player's transaction and betting history, suggesting possible manipulation of the balance display. Due to that reason, the complaint was rejected.

The player from Germany faced difficulties withdrawing his winnings since his Skrill account was locked, and the casino refused to provide bank transfer options despite his verified account. He had repeatedly contacted support but had yet to receive a solution. The issue was resolved when the player exchanged his winnings for cryptocurrency, allowing him to successfully withdraw the funds to his wallet. The complaint was marked as 'resolved' by the Complaints Team.

The player from the United States had been trying to withdraw money from the casino for five months. Despite making numerous deposits and only one withdrawal attempt, the casino claimed there were multiple accounts from his IP address, which the player denied. The player felt misled and had provided evidence of his attempts to resolve the issue. The Complaints Team had engaged with both the player and the casino, but ultimately, the complaint was rejected due to the player's lack of response within the given timeframe.

The player from Texas had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting their complaint. Their money had not been received yet. The Complaints Team had communicated with both the player and the casino regarding the delay, which was attributed to processing times and potential network issues. However, the player did not respond to the team's inquiries, leading to the inability to further investigate the issue. As a result, the complaint was rejected due to lack of communication from the player.

The player from France had his account blocked by the casino due to an incorrect date of birth, despite previously requesting a change via email. The player sought access to his funds and an explanation for the account closure. The complaint was reviewed, and it was determined that the player had registered using a Google account with an incorrect date of birth. Since the player did not correct this information immediately after registration and only requested the change during the withdrawal verification process, the complaint was rejected based on the casino's terms and conditions.

The player from Brazil had registered using Google Account synchronization, which had led to an incomplete name on the casino platform. Despite providing the required documents and a complete name, his withdrawal had been blocked and his account had been closed for a rule violation. The Complaints Team had assessed the situation and noted that while the player's details were inaccurate, it appeared to be an honest mistake. However, the casino had maintained its decision not to unblock the account, and the complaint was ultimately rejected as the player had been responsible for ensuring the accuracy of his personal information.

The player from South Africa had his account banned for alleged duplication after completing KYC verification and attempting to withdraw. The player claimed he only played on his phone and had never registered on the site before. Upon investigation, it was found that multiple accounts were created with similar details, breaching the casino's terms and conditions. Consequently, the complaint was rejected, and no further assistance was provided.

The player from South Africa was banned from the casino, accused of having multiple accounts, after making a withdrawal request. The player asserted that he had only one account and believed the ban was an error, but the casino refused to provide any further information. After investigating, we determined that the complaint was unjustified due to a breach of the casino's terms and conditions regarding multiple accounts. Specific data matches indicated both accounts were used by one person with different identities, making KYC/verification impossible.

The player from the United Kingdom had won €330 but was unable to withdraw it because the casino stated that UK players were not allowed. Despite having received promotional emails indicating otherwise, the player’s withdrawal request was blocked. The player had initially deposited €50 and was advised to use a VPN to verify his account, which increased his winnings to €411. After intervention, the player reported receiving the winnings. The complaint was marked as resolved due to the player's lack of further communication.

The player from Canada had requested a withdrawal of 220 TRX two weeks ago, which was subsequently canceled. He was asked to verify this with the help of the in-game stats but was unable to access them. The player was upset with the support chat's response and required assistance. The issue was resolved after verifying the correct address for the withdrawal, and the player was advised to double-check the address for future transactions.

The player from Thailand had experienced issues with a transaction that was held for verification and then cancelled, but not credited back to his account. Despite having contacted the support team, who claimed the money had been credited, they were unable to provide proof. We had asked the player several clarifying questions and extended the response time by 7 days. However, due to the player's lack of response, we were unable to investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Canada had been banned from Coins.game, which he stated had prevented him from withdrawing his winnings. The casino had cited rule violations as the reason for the ban, which the player had disputed as baseless accusations. After reviewing the evidence provided by the casino, we found that the player's complaint had been related to sports betting. As we didn't have a branch dealing with sports betting, we couldn't advise the player properly and had to reject his complaint. We directed the player to other websites where he could submit a sports betting-related complaint.

The player from the US had been unable to withdraw her winnings of $2,160 due to issues with ID verification, despite having previously made successful withdrawals. She had been locked out of her account and had not received a response from the casino. After our intervention, the player confirmed that her issue with the casino had been resolved. Consequently, we had marked this complaint as 'resolved' in our system.

The player from Minnesota had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting the complaint. The payment hadn't been processed yet. We had informed the player that such delays could occur due to unfinished KYC verification or a high volume of withdrawal requests, and advised them to wait at least 14 days before submitting a complaint. Despite extending the response time by 7 days, the player failed to respond, hence we were unable to investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

A player from Finland, originating from Iran, has his account suspended due to a discrepancy in the birthdate as it was entered in the Persian calendar. His other documents are accurate but the casino has not considered this.

The player from Egypt, who had been depositing and withdrawing funds without issues, found his account had suddenly been blocked when he tried to request a withdrawal of 120USDT. The player claimed that he wasn't informed about the reasons for this action. Despite having reached out to support and his personal account manager, no information had been provided on why his account was blocked. We had contacted the casino for clarification and they had responded stating that the player's account was blocked due to multiple accounts, which was a violation of their terms and conditions. The casino had provided evidence to support their claim. Consequently, the player's complaint had been rejected as the evidence provided by the casino justified their actions.

The player from the UK had encountered issues with an online casino that did not accept UK residents. Despite this, the casino had allowed him to deposit and play, but he was unable to withdraw his winnings. After the Complaints Team intervened, the casino had processed the player's withdrawal successfully. The issue had been marked as resolved.

The player from Brazil had faced a withdrawal delay and account access issues at an online casino. Despite having had multiple successful withdrawals in the past, his recent withdrawal of R$ 900.00 had been cancelled for verification purposes. After he submitted the requested documents and activated 2FA, he encountered login errors. Despite his attempts to resolve the issue, he received no response. We had attempted to assist the player and extended the complaint's timer by 7 days, but the player failed to respond. As a result, we were unable to investigate further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from the US had deposited XRP into his online casino account, but the casino had claimed they hadn't received it. The player had provided a receipt showing the successful transaction. We had attempted to mediate the issue by inviting the casino to join the conversation, but they hadn't responded. The player had been advised to contact the Gaming Curacao Authority for further assistance. The casino later reopened the complaint, stating that the player hadn't included a necessary destination tag in the transaction. The casino had claimed they were unable to refund the transaction as they hadn't received the funds. However, the player had managed to resolve the issue with the help of a VIP host at the casino, who had contacted the wallet provider and replaced the funds. The complaint had then been marked as 'resolved'.

The player from Turkey had invested $35 and made a profit of about $900. However, the casino had cancelled his withdrawal, requested further verification, and later accused him of having multiple accounts. He had clarified that he changed his device and his girlfriend, who lived with him, also registered an account but never deposited or withdrew money. Additionally, a friend had logged into the casino from his computer. Despite our efforts to resolve the issue, the casino did not respond. We had advised the player to contact the Gaming Curaçao Authority. The casino later provided evidence of multiple accounts linked to the same IP address and similar gameplay, as well as the use of VPN software, which were breaches of their terms and conditions. Therefore, we had rejected the complaint.

The player from Germany encountered a problem when he tried to complete the KYC verification process to withdraw his winnings. Despite trying all the suggestions from the support team, including clearing cookies and using a different device, the problem persisted. The player tried to send his verification documents via email, but the casino insisted he must use their website, which was not working for him. The player provided evidence of his attempts, including videos demonstrating the issue. Despite our team's efforts to mediate and suggest alternative verification methods, the casino did not respond. Therefore, the complaint was marked as 'unresolved'. We recommended the player contact Gaming Curacao for further assistance. However, the casino tried to contact the player later and requested to reopen the complaint to allow the player to send the documents via email. The player refused to provide the documentation, which led us to reject the complaint.

The player from Australia had been unable to access her winnings of over $85,000 due to an extended ID verification process by the casino. She had provided all the requested documents but the review process had surpassed the casino's stated 48-hour timeframe. The casino had not responded to the complaint initially, leading to it being classified as 'unresolved'. We had recommended that the player file an official complaint with the casino's licensing authority. Later, the complaint was reopened upon the casino's request and after further investigation, it was discovered that the player had used a VPN to bypass geo-restrictions, violating the casino's terms and conditions. Consequently, we had deemed the casino's actions as justified and had rejected the complaint.

The player from Russia had faced account closure and confiscation of their balance, including their deposit, on grounds of unexplained 'fraud'. Despite having passed the verification process and not having violated any stated casino rules, his account had been closed and funds confiscated. The player had only recently registered and had made a few successful bets on sports games. However, we found that we lacked the specific expertise to handle complaints related to sports betting. Consequently, we were unable to assist the player further and had to reject the complaint.

The player from Bangladesh had encountered withdrawal issues from coins.game after winning $84 from a slot game. Despite having fulfilled an unexpected KYC verification requirement following his withdrawal request, his withdrawal was cancelled, citing a need for manual verification. The Complaints Team had reached out to the player for more details about the ongoing verification process, the status of his documents, and his last communication with the casino. However, the player did not respond to the inquiries. As a result, the complaint was rejected due to lack of response from the player.

The player from Germany had his winnings of 268mbtc confiscated by the casino following a withdrawal request. Despite having fulfilled all KYC requirements and claiming no violation of casino regulations, the casino had only allowed him to withdraw his original deposit of 200mbtc. The player primarily engaged in sports betting, keno, and plinko games. However, as our service focused on online casino complaints, we lacked the necessary insight to address issues related to sports betting. Therefore, we had to reject the player's complaint.

The player from Russia was blocked from his casino account. After winning and undergoing verification, the casino claimed the player had broken the rules and accused him of fraud. The player denied any wrongdoing and was unable to get a response from the casino regarding the specific nature of the alleged fraud. We attempted to reach out to the casino for clarification but received no response. Without cooperation from the casino, we were unable to resolve the player's issue and marked the complaint as 'unresolved'. We advised the player to contact the Gaming Curaçao Authority for further assistance. Upon the player's request for a case reopening, the casino team has notified us about the detection of suspicious activity by their security team regarding the player's sports betting wagers. As we do not handle complaints related to sports betting, we have advised the player to submit their complaint to specialized services that cater to such matters and we had to reject this complaint.

The player from Brazil had been unable to access his account on Coins Game due to an issue with Google Authenticator. Despite having sent multiple emails to customer support, he had been unable to withdraw his winnings of 400.00 BRL. However, the issue was eventually resolved after the player had requested the casino to correct his surname in the account profile and disable the two-factor authentication.

The player from Ukraine faced issues with account verification to withdraw funds from Coins.game Casino. Despite having passed the initial verification stage, the casino delayed the second stage for over 15 business days, preventing the player from withdrawing his money. Later, the player's account was blocked, and his winnings were confiscated without clear reasoning. Despite our multiple attempts to contact the casino and resolve the issue, the casino failed to respond. Therefore, the complaint was marked as 'unresolved'. The casino has later contacted us about the situation and requested we guide the player to a sports betting-related website to offer guidance. As we don't offer such services ourselves, we have rejected the complaint.

The player from Norway had won 2000 USD and had tipped the VIP manager 50 USD at an online casino. However, when he attempted to withdraw his winnings, his account was blocked and he was accused of fraud by the casino. The casino had retained the player's 1800 USD winnings. Despite the player's attempts to communicate with the casino and provide proof of fair play, the casino did not respond. The player had then reached out to the casino's Licensing Authority for further action. The complaint had been closed by the Complaints Team as they awaited the decision of the regulator. We rejected the complaint because the player didn't respond to our messages and questions.

The player from Iowa had experienced difficulties with a withdrawal request at an online casino. After attempting to withdraw $9,000, the casino had cancelled the request and asked for re-verification of the account. However, once the verification process had been completed, the player had noticed that his winnings were missing from his account. Despite our efforts to assist, the player had not responded to our inquiries for further information. As a result, we had been unable to investigate the issue more thoroughly and had to reject the complaint.

The player from India had joined Coinsgame, made deposits, and won approximately 26,000. However, he had entered a nickname instead of his real name during registration, which was discovered when he attempted to withdraw his winnings. Consequently, his account was closed and his winnings were confiscated. We had explained to the player that he was solely responsible for providing accurate information during registration. Given that he had violated a fundamental rule of online gambling by using a nickname instead of his real name, we were unable to assist him in recovering his confiscated winnings. This complaint had been rejected due to the player's breach of the casino's terms and conditions.

The player from Ukraine had been dealing with a gambling addiction and sought to close his account. However, he had encountered difficulties as the casino's self-exclusion function was not functioning as expected, which led to further deposits and losses. The Complaints Team had guided the player on how to communicate his self-exclusion request more effectively to the casino. Following these instructions, the player confirmed that his account had been successfully blocked. As a result, we had marked the complaint as 'resolved'.

The player from Denmark, who identified himself as a gambling addict, had lost $366 and later his entire paycheck of $1565 at Coins.Game casino. He had notified the casino about his addiction on July 27th, but his account was not closed until August 2nd. The player had argued that the casino should have closed his account immediately after being informed about his addiction, and he had sought a refund for the losses incurred after July 27th. The casino did not respond to our inquiries, which led to the case being initially marked as 'unresolved'. However, the casino later claimed to have refunded the player's deposits, and the player confirmed the receipt of this refund. Despite his dissatisfaction with the casino's initial lack of response, he agreed to mark the complaint as 'resolved'.