SG Casino— player complaints: 8 in English

The player from Germany has submitted a withdrawal request less than two weeks prior to contacting us. Winnings haven’t been obtained up to this day.The player from Germany has submitted a withdrawal request less than two weeks prior to contacting us. Winnings haven’t been obtained up to this day. Written by JeanCasino Analyst & Complaint Specialist Submitted: 03 Sep 2026 | Resolved : 06 Sep 2026Automatic translation:

The player from Germany struggled with a gambling addiction and had requested permanent closure of his account at Spinbara, but it remained open. After losing €1,100, he requested closure again and a refund for the deposits made after the initial request. Although the account was finally closed, he did not receive any responses regarding the reimbursement of his losses. We later confirmed that the account had remained open due to a technical issue, and the casino agreed to a goodwill refund of €1,100. The complaint was marked resolved after the player confirmed that the case had been closed, with the refund being processed by bank transfer.

The player from Chile requested withdrawals of approximately €45 from 13 casinos under the same company, totaling over €500, but his access to the accounts was blocked and the withdrawals were canceled. He stated that he had not violated any Terms and Conditions and sought an explanation for the account closures and access to his funds. We reviewed the case together with the related complaints and found that he had used a coordinated strategy across several casino accounts, betting on the outcome of his own gameplay while directly influencing it. Because this created an unfair advantage, we considered the account closures and confiscation of the winnings justified, and the complaints were rejected.

The player from Italy has his account suspended by SG Casino, which also canceled his requested withdrawal. He is seeking a refund of his remaining balance.

= 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 Germany faced an issue with withdrawing €99 from her account at the casino and awaited a resolution. The Complaints Team explained that withdrawal delays could occur due to KYC verification or high withdrawal volumes and advised patience while cooperating with the casino. Despite extending the response time, the player did not reply to the team's messages or requests for further information. Consequently, the complaint was closed due to lack of communication, with the option to reopen it if the player resumed contact.

The player from Germany reported that his cashback at SGCasino was being withheld despite his VIP status and significant losses. He claimed that withdrawal requests were purposely delayed until he canceled them out of frustration, leading to a loss of funds. The player demanded correct cashback payments and compensation for the alleged manipulation of his gaming behavior. We were unable to proceed with the complaint due to the lack of objective evidence and documented cashback terms to verify the player's claims. Additionally, since the player voluntarily canceled withdrawal requests and had a zero balance at the time, there was no basis to hold the casino responsible for the losses. The complaint was therefore rejected due to insufficient grounds.