Android Phone

iPad

iPhone

Windows

Android Tablet

Euro

Canadian Dollar

Norwegian Krone

New Zealand Dollar

1x2 Gaming

2by2 Gaming

Ainsworth

Alchemy Gaming

Amatic

Barcrest

Betsoft

BGAMING

Big Time Gaming

Booming Games

Crazy Tooth Studio

Dream Tech

Electric Elephant

Elk Studios

Endorphina

Fantasma Games

Fortune Factory Studios

Foxium

Gameburger Studios

Gamevy

Genesis Gaming

Golden Rock Studios

Hacksaw Gaming

Iron Dog Studio

iSoftBet

Jade Rabbit Studio

Just for the Win

Microgaming

Neon Valley Studios

NetEnt

NextGen Gaming

Nolimit City

Northern Lights Gaming

Old Skool Studios

PariPlay

PearFiction Studios

Play'n Go

Playson

Playtech

Pragmatic Play

Probability Jones

Push Gaming

QuickSpin

Rabcat

Realistic Games

Red Rake Gaming

Red Tiger Gaming

Red7

ReelPlay

Relax Gaming

Shuffle Master

Silverback Gaming

Skillzz Gaming

Slingshot Studios

Snowborn Games

Spearhead Studios

Spinomenal

SpinPlay Games

Storm Gaming Technology

Thunderkick

Triple Edge Studios

Wazdan

Yggdrasil Gaming

Dreamz Casino

Master Card

VISA

Trustly

Sofort

Neteller

Skrill

Paysafecard

Instadebit

Idebit

Interac

Volt

Klarna

Chat

Email

Hi ▇▇▇▇▇▇ - welcome to CasinoReviews.com.

Please read our Complaint Guidance and our Complaints FAQ to ensure that you fully understand how our complaint management process functions.

As this report will ultimately be published, your username cannot contain information that could be used to identify you, like parts of your name, your date/year of birth or email address. Could you please pick a new username and we'll change it for you?

As we are the ADR for the N1 Interactive Ltd license under the Malta Gaming Authority license there is certain information we have to provide you now.

You can find all the relevant information about this service here – https://casinoreviews.com/terms-of-use

To summarise.

– Use of this service does not preclude your seeking redress through court proceedings .

– This service is free to use for both the complainant and operator.

– At any point during the procedure the submitting party retains the right to withdraw their complaint. This does not preclude our right to continue the discussion with the involved operator of general issues related to the complaint (i.e. insufficiently clear terms and conditions).

– You are not obliged to obtain independent or legal advice or representation, though you may choose to do so.

If you have any questions about the above, let us know.

Sadly, there's nothing we can do to assist you in this situation. The Dreamz Casino terms of use include the following:


> "9.1 Each player can create only one (1) personal user account. Creating multiple accounts by a player (“Duplicate Accounts”) can lead to termination of the accounts and suspension of all payouts. Any returns, winnings, or bonuses which the player has gained or accrued during such time as the Duplicate Account was active may be reclaimed by us, and players undertake to return to us on demand any such funds which have been withdrawn from the Duplicate Account."


This restriction is on the number of accounts you are allowed to create, not on the number of accounts you have active. Where you have created a second account, that account is in violation of term 9.1, voiding any activity on that account.

Importantly, we would also note that your intent in this matter was explicitly to circumvent the rules. You asked that your first account be self-excluded, specifically as a responsible gambling control, asking that the operator act to prevent you reaccessing their service. You then opened a second account bypass the restrictions that you had asked the operator to put in place.

You may find the free Responsible Gambling app BetBlocker useful. It allows users to restrict their internet capable devices from accessing over 325k gambling operator websites for between 24 hours and 5 years.

You can also find information on the various support agencies available to support you in your country in the Responsible Gambling Directory.

While we understand that this will not be the outcome you were hoping for, sadly there is nothing we can do to support you in this instance.

CasinoReviews.com Complaints Team

Please allow me to first thank you for your response to my complaint. Also, you may use Sam1231 as my username for communication purposes.

First of all, I would like to clarify once again that my first account was closed at my own request by the casino itself, while the second account was opened by me and was fully accepted by the casino, including passing the verification process (KYC) without any issues. The confirmation of my account registration and the approval of KYC clearly gave me the impression that I met all the requirements to be considered a regular player.

Furthermore, the casino was fully aware that my first account had been closed and that I had opened a second account. This was not considered a problem at all when I deposited money and played. The closure of the first account and the opening of the second account only became an issue after I won and attempted to withdraw my winnings. If I had not won, this situation would never have been questioned.

For this reason, I do not agree with the conclusion that I breached clause 9.1 in the way it is being presented. Such interpretetaion of the clause is not objective nor fair.

The wording of the clause does not support such an automatic application that you are attempting. This wording exists precisely because it would not be fair or reasonable for all winnings to be automatically confiscated in a situation like this.

Clause 9.1 clearly states that creating multiple accounts **“CAN”** lead to account termination and suspension of payouts. It also states that any winnings generated while a duplicate account was active **“MAY”** be reclaimed by the casino. This means that it is not the only procedure in this situation and requires further grounds to be applied. If creating multiple accounts automatically resulted in confiscation of winnings, this would have been stated clearly and absolutely, and there would be no need for an ADR process at all, also you should not have opened me a new account after KYC. The use of the word “may” clearly shows that the casino is expected to assess each case individually and not act automatically simply because more than one account was created.

I would also like to emphasize that the purpose of a rule such as clause 9.1 (“one account per player”) is generally understandable: to prevent fraud and abuse (for example, claiming bonuses multiple times), to support identity and transaction controls (KYC/AML).

However, precisely because this rule is intended to prevent abuse and risk, it must be applied in line with its purpose and the specific circumstances of each case, not used as an automatic justification for total confiscation whenever a “second account” exists. In my case, there were never two active accounts at the same time, and there was no attempt at fraud or unfair advantage.

I would have continued playing on my original account, but this was not possible, which is why I opened a new account solely because I no longer had access to the first one. I do not have a gambling problem, but instead closed the account on an impulse.  If the operator chooses to impose the most severe measure (full confiscation), then it is the operator’s responsibility to clearly demonstrate why my case falls within the purpose of this rule and why the measure taken was reasonable and proportionate in these circumstances.

I would also like to add that confiscation of winnings under clause 9.1 cannot reasonably be justified solely on the basis that more than one account was created. Such a severe measure logically presupposes that, in addition to the existence of two accounts, there must be some further aggravating factor, such as fraud, abuse, unfair advantage, or concrete harm to the operator. Confiscating all winnings based only on the fact that a second account was opened—without any additional wrongdoing—would be insufficient, excessive, and clearly disproportionate. In my case, no such additional factor exists: there was no abuse, no attempt to gain unfair benefits, and no overlapping active accounts. For this reason, applying full confiscation solely because two accounts existed goes beyond the purpose of clause 9.1 and results in a punishment that is disproportionate to the actual circumstances.

For these reasons, I believe that the decision taken in my case does not properly take into account the actual circumstances and that the rules have been applied in an unfair and automatic manner.

Also, if the ADR would accept such stand, it would mean that going forward, the casino can take all the lost deposits from duplicate accounts (regardless of the reason) and also confiscate all winnings of such accounts without any further reasoning. This would be an unreasonable standing, and clear misuse of the rationale of such term.

Hi Sam1231,

Sadly, we cannot support your position, as we've already clearly expressed.

Your intention was abusive in nature, being explicitly to circumvent responsible gambling protections that you asked the operator to enforce.

The fact that the term provides the operator the option of whether or not to enforce the rule ("can"), simply allows the business the prerogative to disregard the breach where they feel that it is appropriate to do so. That they have chosen not to do so in this situation does not add any validity to your claim.

The terms are explicit and clear. You "create[d]" more than one account. This is a clear violation of the rules and as such our ruling has to support the operator.

We're sorry you are unhappy with the outcome of your claim. You remain free to escalate your claim to the relevant court systems if you persist in your position, but this service can offer you no further assistance.

CasinoReviews.com Complaints Team

Found for the Operator - This player has opened multiple accounts, changing their registration information, in order to bypass a self-exclusion.

This complaint is submitted against Dreamz Casino, operated by N1 Interactive Limited, regarding the permanent closure of my account (email: ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇) and the full confiscation of my winnings in the amount of €41,000. The casino’s decision constitutes an extreme and disproportionate measure, taken without transparency and without giving me any real opportunity to access or present evidence relating to my winnings.

The casino has blocked and closed my account, completely preventing me from accessing my betting, transaction, and winnings history. This situation is not the result of any lack of cooperation on my part, but a direct consequence of the operator’s decision to close my account and deny me access to my personal data. I have sent them emails for weeks, but it have not resolved the situation.

I previously had an account with Dreamz, which I closed for forever, by applying a permanent self-exclusion as a responsible gaming measure. Couple weeks later I wanted to start gambling again. Naturally, I would have continued using my old account normally for play if that had been possible. However, the previous account became unusable and could no longer be accessed. For this reason—and only for this reason—I had to create a new account. The purpose of opening the new account was not to circumvent rules, gain unfair advantages, or engage in abuse, but was solely the result of the practical impossibility of playing on the old account.

It is important to note that I have never had two active accounts at the same time. I have concrete evidence (screenshots) showing that my old account was closed on 22.11.2024, while the new account was opened on 13.12.2024. These dates clearly demonstrate that there was no overlap between accounts and that the allegation of a “duplicate account” in the sense of two simultaneously active accounts is factually incorrect.

Despite this, the casino allowed the creation of the new account, accepted my deposits, permitted full gameplay activity, and completed the identity verification process (KYC). Only after I generated substantial winnings did the casino retroactively interpret the situation as a breach and confiscate all winnings. The rules were not enforced at the time of registration, during gameplay, or during verification, but only once the casino faced the obligation to pay significant winnings.

In these circumstances, it is essential to underline that the burden of argument and proof lies with the casino, not with me as the player. It is the casino that took an extreme decision by confiscating my winnings and closing my account while keeping all relevant evidence under its control.

To date, no real justification by the casino has been provided to me. On the contrary, the lack of transparency, the denial of access to data, and the selective application of rules create the impression of an unfair and abusive practice against the player.

In these circumstances, I request that the ADR review this case and ask the casino to give me my payment of €41,000  in full. I have always played in accordance with the rules.

If you need any other documents or proof from me, please let me know.

Dreamz Casino - Confiscation of Winnings 

To submit an online gambling complaint, register a new account or log in.

Create account

Log in

Got a complaint about a gambling site?

Casino Review Site Logo

Log out

Account

Title

Complaint Details

Posted By

Disputed amount

Date raised

Date closed

Player’s Complaint

To protect the privacy of our users, all personally identifiable information has been redacted. If you see anything we've missed contact us at complaints@casinoreviews.com.

Player's Complaint

Player Complaint Responses

Complaint Title

This complaint may have been archived. If you are looking for information about your complaint, please contact us at complaints@casinoreviews.com