What Happened
A player from Italy says they deposited €300 at Wild.io in January 2026, took the matching bonus, won and asked for a payout. They say they passed KYC, a second ID and address check, a dated selfie and a video call, then got a form email in April voiding the balance for multiple accounts. Wild.io told the mediator a shared IP, the same welcome bonus and similar play linked the account to another. The mediator found that too thin, since both holders passed video checks, and asked Wild.io to pay.
How It Developed
- 2026-04-28Complaint opened; the player said they had never been told what rule they broke.
- 2026-05-15Wild.io sent its evidence to the mediator by email rather than posting it.
- 2026-06-29Asked twice about household members and shared networks, the player said they were the only user and relied on mobile data because their home broadband was poor.
- 2026-08-04Pressed for its grounds, Wild.io said the decision rested on a shared IP plus both accounts claiming the welcome bonus and playing the same games, under its one-account and one-bonus rules.
- 2026-08-06The mediator wrote that two video-verified people playing similar games on the same mobile IP did not prove one person or collusion, and asked Wild.io to release the winnings.
- 2026-09-09Wild.io offered another video call instead and emailed the player to book it; the player never confirmed in the thread and the case was closed for no response.
Abandoned
The player stopped responding after Wild.io offered a second video check, even though the mediator had asked the casino to pay; the €4,341 stays void. It can be reopened.
What Helped
Patience nearly paid off: after four months the mediator sided with the player and asked for the money. What failed was the last step, a second video call the casino offered, which the player never confirmed in the thread. If you get that far, do the call and post that you did; an abandoned case helps the casino, not you.