Android Phone

iPad

iPhone

Android Tablet

Windows

Canadian Dollar

British Pound Sterling

Norwegian Krone

Russian Ruble

Swedish Krona

US Dollar

1x2 Gaming

Ainsworth

Amatic

Amaya

Belatra Games

Betsoft

BGAMING

Big Time Gaming

Booming Games

Elk Studios

Endorphina

GameArt

Habanero

Iron Dog Studio

iSoftBet

Microgaming

NetEnt

Platipus

Play'n Go

Pragmatic Play

Thunderkick

Yggdrasil Gaming

N1 Casino

Ideal

Idebit

Instadebit

Interac

Maestro

Master Card

Neteller

Paysafecard

Qiwi

Skrill

Sofort

Trustly

VISA

Yandex

Zimpler

Chat

Email

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

Please read our Complaint Guidance and Complaint FAQs 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 you already mentioned above, it is stated that the Bonus Terms and Conditions mention that; _"The max. bet limit includes bets doubling after a game round has been completed and bonus rounds (purchased within the game)."_

A 'buy feature' is another terms for a bonus round that you purchase while playing a game. The mechanics are still the same, albeit the name changes slightly. If the bonus feature you purchased while playing the specific slot, was more than 5 EUR, then that would count as a breach of the Terms and Conditions that you agreed to when you accepted and claimed the bonus, as well as when you signed up to N1 Casino.

Can you confirm how much the bonus purchase for the 'buy feature' was?

Thanks,
CasinoReviews.com Complaints Team

The buy feature purchase amount was 400 EUR.

The spins inside the purchased bonus round were played at €0.80 per spin, and no individual spin exceeded the €5 limit.

Hi winkle95,

Sadly there's nothing we can do to assist you with this matter.

The operator's terms of use in this respect are as follows:


> "The maximum bet while wagering is 5 EUR or equivalent (5 USD, 50 NOK, 7.5 CAD/NZD). The max. bet limit includes bets doubling after a game round has been completed and **bonus rounds (purchased within the game)**."


In the first instance, this is a restriction on the "wager" not the spin value. Your wager - the money that you put at risk - was €400, far exceeding the maximum allowed wager of €5.

In the second instance, the term clearly and explicitly includes "bonus rounds (purchased within the game)", meaning that if the bonus feature you purchased required a bet of more than €5, you've also breached the term that way.

Given that there's been a clear breach of terms here, the operator are within their rights to consider the bonus contract void, and reset both parties to pre-contract conditions.

Sorry we cannot be of further help.

CasinoReviews.com Complaints Team

Subiect: Additional feedback for record – recurring patterns and transparency concerns

Dear CasinoReviews Team,

Thank you again for your time and for reviewing my complaint.
I would like to provide some additional information for the record only, without any intention to reopen the case.

There are several recurring patterns in my experience that I believe are important to highlight:

1. This is not the first time my balance has been confiscated under the same bonus condition related to buy features. The issue appears to be systemic rather than isolated.

2. In practice, there are no buy features that can be purchased below the €5 maximum bet limit. Buy features are always calculated as a multiple of the base bet, which makes compliance with this rule technically impossible while a bonus is active.

3. The bonus wagering requirement (x40 in this case) and the way the bonus system functions give the clear impression that buying bonus features is allowed and contributes normally to wagering. The system accepts such gameplay without restriction or warning, and wagering progresses as expected.

4. The relevant rule is not explained in a clear and explicit way that would allow a player to reasonably understand that purchasing a bonus feature is effectively prohibited while a bonus is active.

5. Additionally, in the transaction history and data export provided by the casino, there is no identifiable accounting entry showing when and how the disputed balance was confiscated or adjusted. Such a significant balance change should be clearly traceable and documented.

6. Finally, I was concerned that the conclusion relied almost exclusively on an interpretative approach, rather than a full examination of practical applicability, transparency, accounting traceability, and player understanding. From a consumer protection perspective within the EU, ambiguous contractual terms are generally expected to be interpreted in favor of the consumer.

I am sharing these points purely as feedback, as I believe they reflect broader structural issues that may affect other players in similar situations.

Kind regards,
winkle

Based on the transaction history provided, buy features starting from 20 EUR were purchased from the very beginning of gameplay.



If such activity constituted a violation of the maximum bet rule, then the rule was breached from the first purchase onward. In that case, the balance should have been adjusted immediately and in full.



The decision to preserve 2,000 EUR while confiscating the remainder is inconsistent with the operator’s own rule, which does not allow for partial or selective application. This indicates that the adjustment was not triggered by a clearly identifiable violation event.

HI winkle95,

Sadly we cannot agree with your interpretation of events.


1. Given that you acknowledge that you've had previous problems of exactly the same nature, you were aware that you were not allowed to exceed the wager limit, even with bonus buy features.
2. Compliance with the rule is perfectly possible - if you cannot identify a compliant bonus buy feature, do not use bonus buy features. There is no requirement for players to use bonus buy features.
3. There is nothing in the MGA regulations that require the operator to take responsibility for preventing players from breaching rules that they agreed to.
4. There is nothing unclear about the term. It functions exactly as it is written.
5. The relevant part of the history is the part that shows the violation. When the balance was voided afterwards has no bearing on whether or not you violated the bonus terms.
6. It is our professional opinion, based on years of precedent, and consistent practice amongst approved ADRs and the regulator, that the term in question is not ambiguous in any way. However, even where the term was to be considered ambiguous, the fact that you have previously experienced the mechanics of how this term is enforced means that it cannot plausibly claimed that your understanding of the restrictions this term created was unclear.

While we understand that you are frustrated with the outcome of your claim, as previously directed, there's nothing we can do to support you in this instance.

CasinoReviews.com Complaints Team

I acknowledge receipt of your final decision and understand that the case has been closed.

However, I would like to formally express my concern regarding how the matter was handled from a procedural perspective.

Throughout the process, my submissions focused not only on the interpretation of bonus terms, but on concrete factual and procedural elements, including accounting traceability and consistency of rule application. These aspects were central to my complaint, yet they were not addressed in the final assessment, which was limited solely to a general interpretation of the terms.

As a consumer, this leaves me with the impression that my case was not examined on its full factual merits, and that my position was effectively reduced to an interpretative disagreement, despite the presence of unresolved procedural issues.

I am providing this feedback for your records, as the manner in which the case was handled has directly impacted my confidence in the dispute resolution process.



Kind regards,

▇▇▇▇▇▇

Hi winkle95,

We acknowledge receipt of your perspective on this matter.

Thanks,

CasinoReviews.com Complaints Team

Found for the Operator - This player has exceeded the maximum allowed bet term while playing with a bonus. As such there is nothing we can do to help them.

I am submitting this complaint regarding the confiscation of a significant part of my balance by N1 Casino following an alleged breach of the “maximum bet” rule while playing with an active bonus.

On 14.01, I activated a deposit bonus that included a maximum bet limit of 5 EUR. Before and during gameplay, I carefully checked the bonus terms to ensure compliance. The terms stated that the maximum bet is 5 EUR, including doubled bets and bonus rounds purchased within the game. However, the terms did not explicitly state that purchasing a bonus feature (“buy feature”) would be treated as a single bet equal to the full purchase amount for the purpose of the max bet rule.

During bonus play, I used the buy feature option available in slot games. At no point was I warned that this action would violate the bonus terms. The system did not block the action, cancel the bonus, or display any notification indicating a breach. On the contrary, the bonus wagering continued normally for several hours, which reasonably led me to believe that my gameplay was permitted under the active bonus conditions.

After gameplay had concluded, and after my KYC verification was completed on the same day, I requested a withdrawal. Approximately 65 hours later, I was informed by N1 Casino that a large portion of my balance had been confiscated due to an alleged violation of the maximum bet rule. The casino allowed approximately 2,000 EUR to remain available, while confiscating the rest, which indicates inconsistent enforcement of the alleged rule breach.

Despite my repeated requests, the casino did not provide concrete evidence identifying a specific spin exceeding the 5 EUR limit. Instead, I was provided with a very large and general account history export covering multiple years (dating back to 2019), without a filtered or session-specific report demonstrating the alleged violation related to the disputed bonus session.

The core issue of this dispute is that no clear and concrete proof has been presented showing that I placed a spin exceeding the maximum allowed bet. The accusation appears to rely solely on an interpretation that a buy feature purchase is automatically equivalent to a bet exceeding the maximum limit, despite this not being clearly and explicitly defined in the bonus terms and despite the absence of real-time warnings or preventive system controls.

I respectfully request an independent review of whether the confiscation of my balance was justified, taking into account:
- the lack of explicit wording in the bonus terms regarding buy feature purchases being treated as max bet violations,
- the absence of any real-time warning, restriction, or automatic bonus cancellation,
- the lack of concrete evidence demonstrating a specific bet exceeding the 5 EUR limit,
- and the proportionality and consistency of the applied sanction.

I am seeking a fair resolution and the return of the confiscated amount.

N1 Casino - Confiscation of bonus winnings due to disputed max bet interpretation

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