Neon54 Casino— player complaints: 7 in English

The player from Italy was unable to access their account after playing for a week, with no warning or response from support. They requested to withdraw their accumulated balance of approximately €2,550. We reviewed the casino’s evidence and found that they had started bonus feature rounds and delayed completing them until after the wagering requirements were met, which was prohibited under Section 7.19 of the casino’s Terms. As a result, the casino’s account closure was considered justified, and the complaint was closed as rejected.

= 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

= 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 Finland had been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, their payout hadn’t been received yet. We explained that withdrawals could take several days or weeks and might be delayed by KYC verification or a high volume of requests, so she was asked to wait at least 14 days before further action. As she did not respond to our follow-up messages and reminders, we were unable to continue the investigation and the complaint was closed for now.

The player from Germany had requested a withdrawal less than two weeks before submitting this complaint. The payment had not been processed yet. The withdrawal was initially delayed and stuck on "Processing" for over two weeks, likely due to pending verification or processing times. The player was advised to wait at least 14 days before escalating the issue. The complaint was marked as resolved after the player confirmed the issue had been addressed, though specific resolution details were not disclosed.

The player from Italy had requested a withdrawal three weeks ago and had not received the payment despite completing the verification process and receiving assurances from technical support. The casino had confirmed that the payment would be processed within 3 to 5 working days. The complaint was resolved after the casino requested the player's bank details and processed the withdrawal accordingly. The player confirmed receipt of the payment, and the case was then closed.

The player from Germany had his Neon54 account permanently closed due to self-exclusion, but the casino reactivated it without his consent, which led to further deposits totaling €450. He reached out to support for a refund of his losses, but his messages were ignored. Upon reviewing the case, we found that the casino acknowledged the situation and offered a refund as a goodwill gesture. However, due to a lack of evidence proving that the casino was informed about the player's gambling addiction at the time of self-exclusion, we could not enforce the refund or pursue the case on responsible gambling grounds. Consequently, the complaint was closed as rejected, with a recommendation for the player to provide further evidence if available.