Beton.win Casino— player complaints: 6 in English

The player from Chile had asked both via chat and email for her account to be closed or for self-exclusion measures to be implemented, but the casino had provided only repetitive responses indicating her case was under review or that they lacked the tools to assist her. She had expressed concern over her gaming issues. The Complaints Team had intervened, but the casino did not react and the complaint has been closed as unresolved. Some time later, the caisno requested a reopen of this case, stating that the player's account was no longer in use. Since we could not get the player's confirmation and establish next step, the complaint has been rejected. The player can request reopen at any time.

The player from Chile had requested responsible gaming tools from BetonWin.org but was informed that these features were unavailable, which led to further gambling losses. He sought a refund of approximately CLP $1,200,000, the closure of his account, and permanent self-exclusion, citing their inability to provide the necessary support. The Complaints Team had made multiple attempts to contact the casino for resolution but did not receive any response. Consequently, the complaint was marked as unresolved, with a recommendation to contact the relevant regulatory authority for further assistance. The casino later reopened the complaint but failed to respond to further inquiries, which led to the classification of the complaint as "failed self-exclusion."

The player from Buenos Aires successfully transferred $10,000 from her Mercado Pago account to the casino, but the funds were not reflected in her casino account. Despite providing the transfer receipt, the casino claimed it could not find the transaction. The Complaints Team advised the player to contact her payment provider for investigation, as the casino was unable to locate the deposit. Due to the player's lack of response to follow-up inquiries, the complaint was closed without resolution. Tha casino later clarified to us the transfer of 10,000 ARS was made without first generating a valid deposit order on the platform. In similar situations on the platform the amount should always be returned to the originating account via an automatic refund within an estimated period of up to 7 business days. The casino alleges the player didn't make any contact with them regarding the issue after it occured.

= 0 }).length === 0) { var date = new Date(); date.setTime(date.getTime()+(7*24*60*60*1000)); document.cookie = "restCSSIsCached=true; expires=" + date.toGMTString() + "; path=/"; } } LUX=function(){var n=Math.floor;function t(){return Date.now?Date.now():+new Date}var r,a=t(),e=window.performance||{},i=e.timing||{navigationStart:(null===(r=window.LUX)||void 0===r?void 0:r.ns)||a};function o(){return e.now?n(e.now()):t()-i.navigationStart}(LUX=window.LUX||{}).ac=[],LUX.addData=function(n,t){return LUX.cmd(["addData",n,t])},LUX.cmd=function(n){return LUX.ac.push(n)},LUX.getDebug=function(){return[[a,0,[]]]},LUX.init=function(n){return LUX.cmd(["init",n||o()])},LUX.mark=function(){for(var n=[],t=0;t

The player from Chile had repeatedly requested the permanent closure of his account, but the casino refused to comply, insisting on a "medical certificate" before considering the request. He expressed concern about the casino's methods and sought assistance to ensure the deletion of his account and personal data. We asked him to forward the account closure requests and the casino’s replies so we could review the case, but he did not respond to our messages or reminder. As a result, we were unable to continue the investigation, and the complaint was closed for now due to lack of response.

The player from Chile repeatedly requested self-exclusion due to gambling addiction, but the casino failed to process her requests. She expressed concern about the significant amount of money lost during that time. The Complaints Team attempted to facilitate communication with the casino and requested evidence and clarification, but the casino did not respond. As a result, the complaint was marked as unresolved due to a lack of cooperation from the casino. The player was advised to contact the relevant gaming licensing authority for further assistance. Later, the complaint was reopened at the request of the casino, stating that they wish to cooperate and to deal with this issue, but due to the lack of the player's response, the complaint was subsequently rejected.