What Happened
A player from Australia says BitStarz refused to pay about $2,500 in winnings, saying they had another account, then closed the account after returning a $300 deposit. BitStarz says the player had self-excluded on another account in May 2025 and broke its one-account rule. The player says support itself gave them the login when they came back.
How It Developed
- 2026-08-06Complaint opened. The player said they had forgotten an old account, played only casino games with no bonus, and put their 2026 deposits at $2,951.
- 2026-08-24BitStarz said it kept the winnings because the player had self-excluded and then used another account, citing its one-account rule.
- 2026-08-26Asked for details, the casino said the player had three accounts, created in 2023, 2024 and 2025, and that it spotted the link at the first withdrawal on the disputed one.
- 2026-10-02The mediator said the casino's own email changed the picture: on 10 May 2026 the player told support they had self-excluded before, and the account was reopened. It now treats this as a responsible gambling case and asked whether BitStarz will refund losses since then.
- 2026-10-19The mediator is still waiting for the full transaction history. New replies from both sides are awaiting moderation.
Ongoing
The mediator now treats this as a self-exclusion failure and is waiting for BitStarz's transaction history and its answer on refunding losses.
What Has (and Hasn't) Helped
Telling support up front about the earlier self-exclusion. The casino's own records of that chat turned this from a duplicate-account case into a responsible gambling one, and the mediator asked whether the casino will refund the losses.