Stake Casino— player complaints: 33 in English

The player from Nova Scotia has requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. The payment hasn’t been processed yet.The player from Nova Scotia has requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. The payment hasn’t been processed yet. Written by JeanCasino Analyst & Complaint Specialist Submitted: 25 Sep 2026 Automatic translation:

The player from Alberta has requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. The payment hasn’t been processed yet.The player from Alberta has requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. The payment hasn’t been processed yet. Written by JeanCasino Analyst & Complaint Specialist Submitted: 24 Sep 2026 Automatic translation:

The player from Egypt faces issues with a deposit of EGP 1,000 made to his Stake account on September 6, 2026, which has not been credited despite confirmation from support. Following conflicting information from different agents, he requests an investigation into the transaction and seeks either the credit of his deposit or evidence of its non-arrival.The player from Egypt faces issues with a deposit of EGP 1,000 made to his Stake account on September 6, 2026, which has not been credited despite confirmation from support. Following conflicting information from different agents, he requests an investigation into the transaction and seeks either the credit of his deposit or evidence of its non-arrival. Written by KarlaCasino Analyst & Complaint Specialist Submitted: 09 Sep 2026 | Resolved : 12 Sep 2026Automatic translation:

The player from Chile has requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. Their money hasn’t been received yet.The player from Chile has requested a withdrawal less than two weeks prior to submitting this complaint. Their money hasn’t been received yet. Written by JeanCasino Analyst & Complaint Specialist Submitted: 06 Sep 2026 Automatic translation:

The player from Bulgaria 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 Bulgaria 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: 29 Aug 2026 | Resolved : 29 Aug 2026Automatic translation:

The player from Bulgaria has been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, their payout hasn’t been received yet.The player from Bulgaria has been waiting for a withdrawal for less than two weeks. Unfortunately, their payout hasn’t been received yet. Written by JeanCasino Analyst & Complaint Specialist Submitted: 29 Aug 2026 Automatic translation:

The player from Finland claimed that Stake Casino had refused to credit a promised $500 bonus after she had met all the conditions outlined in their promotional email. Despite confirmation of eligibility from customer support, she was told that the coupon had expired without any disclosed claiming deadline. She sought either the bonus credited to her account or equivalent compensation. After reviewing the casino’s bonus terms, we found that bonuses not claimed within the applicable claiming period or 60 days, whichever was shorter, could be cancelled. As she had attempted to claim the bonus more than 60 days after it became available, we rejected the complaint because the refusal was considered consistent with the casino’s terms.The player from Finland claimed that Stake Casino had refused to credit a promised $500 bonus after she had met all the conditions outlined in their promotional email. Despite confirmation of eligibility from customer support, she was told that the coupon had expired without any disclosed claiming deadline. She sought either the bonus credited to her account or equivalent compensation. After reviewing the casino’s bonus terms, we found that bonuses not claimed within the applicable claiming period or 60 days, whichever was shorter, could be cancelled. As she had attempted to claim the bonus more than 60 days after it became available, we rejected the complaint because the refusal was considered consistent with the casino’s terms. Written by AttilaComplaint Specialist Submitted: 10 Aug 2026 | Closed : 19 Aug 2026Automatic translation:

The player from India reported a lost deposit of ₹15,000. The casino remained unresponsive to the issue. We reviewed the disputed transactions and requested original bank/wallet statements and confirmation of refund or chargeback status. Although the player provided additional MobiKwik statements and email replies, the casino maintained that its payment provider had never received the funds. As the payment trail could not be conclusively verified, we closed the complaint as unresolved and advised the player to continue with MobiKwik or the relevant financial authority.

The player from Argentina complains about Stake for allowing him to open and fund an account while he was underage and for not responding to his responsible gambling requests. He seeks the return of his deposits, citing that his requests to block deposits and self-exclude were ignored, leading to significant losses.

The player from Córdoba has been unable to withdraw 699.32 USDC from his Stake account for eight months, due to issues with the Source of Funds verification process. Despite providing documentation, including a signed gift declaration and public blockchain evidence, the casino's system automatically rejects the submission, and he has received no concrete assistance from customer support.

The player from Saskatchewan had an account at stake.com that was initially verified, but they were then facing repeated document requests for withdrawal of $3525.15, which led to frustration. Despite providing various forms of documentation, including identity verification, proof of address, and proof of income, the casino continually rejected the submissions, and the player felt trapped in a cycle of excessive verification. We asked the casino for a clear explanation, and it was confirmed that the case had been held up by Proof of Address and Source of Funds checks, with the employer letter and bank documents being reviewed for format and authenticity issues. After the player resubmitted the employer letter and bank statement through the verification section, the casino completed the verification and lifted the account restriction. The complaint was closed for now because the player stopped responding to our follow-up messages, so we could not continue the investigation.

= 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 India had fully cooperated with Stake's verification process, submitting all requested documents, yet his account remained restricted and he could not access his funds or play games. He requested assistance to either complete the verification or allow the withdrawal of his funds. We asked for clarification about the account closure date, the disputed balance of $2,947, the games played, and whether the winnings were made with an active bonus, but he did not reply. As a result, we could not continue the investigation and the complaint was closed due to lack of response.

= 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

= 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 India had self-excluded from his original account due to gambling addiction but was allowed to create a new account using the same identity card, which resulted in a loss of $150. He questioned why the casino had permitted this and requested a refund for his losses. We reviewed the complaint and evidence provided by the casino, which indicated deliberate manipulation of account and identity details to circumvent the casino’s restrictions. It was concluded that the casino had not failed to enforce the self-exclusion, but that its systems had been intentionally bypassed through multiple accounts and differing personal information. Therefore, the refund request was not supported and the complaint was closed.

= 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 India was facing issues with two deposits of 1800 INR and 1000 INR that were not credited to his casino wallet. He contacted stake.com support, who advised him to approach his local bank for a chargeback. He was then raising a complaint as he had complied with their suggestion but was uncertain if he would receive the refund. We clarified that the complaint could not be investigated further because he had already requested a chargeback, which fell outside our policy. As a result, the complaint was rejected.