What Happened
A player from Belgium says Bitguruz closed their verified account over rude messages to staff while roughly 2,250 sat in the balance, money they say grew from a weekly cashback of about €1,036 that had already been wagered three times over. Bitguruz first said the balance was zero, then that it was unfinished bonus money, and that the player had asked for closure themselves. The player also argued they had asked to close the account on 12 May, were ignored, and lost about €8,000 in the following nine days.
How It Developed
- 2026-05-23Complaint opened. The player admitted the bad language but said that did not justify keeping the balance.
- 2026-06-02Bitguruz replied that the player had asked for permanent closure on 22 May, the balance was zero and bonuses are discretionary; the player disputed all three points.
- 2026-06-08The mediator told the casino that rude language can close an account but cannot void winnings, and asked whether the bonus had been wagered.
- 2026-06-14The casino now said the balance was cashback bonus funds whose wagering was incomplete, and that the 12 May email was a bonus negotiation, not a closure request.
- 2026-07-29A resolver rejected the casino's first batch of evidence as incomplete and demanded the game log and the bonus wagering progress at the time of closure.
- 2026-08-10With those records in hand, the mediator rejected the complaint: wagering was unfinished, the closure for abuse was justified, and the 12 May email was not a valid self-exclusion request.
Rejected
The game logs showed the cashback bonus was not fully wagered when the account was justifiably closed for abuse, and the earlier closure email was not a valid self-exclusion.
What Has (and Hasn't) Helped
The mediator did push hard, refusing the casino's first evidence and insisting on the actual game log and wagering counter, which is the right record to ask for in any cashback dispute. It went against the player once those logs showed the wagering was not complete. The €8,000 refund claim failed because the 12 May email read as haggling over bonuses rather than a clear addiction-based closure request; if you mean self-exclusion, say so plainly and do not tie it to conditions.