The register
The Dossier: 41 Files, 2,914 Complaints, 611 Still Open
A file opens when a reader sends us something checkable: a timestamped withdrawal request, a support transcript, a bonus term as it stood on the day it was applied. It does not open on an opinion. Forty one files were live during the period running to 31 July 2026, holding 2,914 logged complaints between them, 611 of which were unresolved at the cutoff. This page explains what is in a file and what the current cut shows.
How a file opens, and what closes one
Three things are needed before a file opens. The complaint must name the operator and the date. It must include one document or record the newsroom can read, not only a description of one. And the reader must confirm the complaint was put to the operator first, with the date it was put.
Once open, a file carries four headline fields: complaints filed in the last twelve months, complaints unresolved at the cutoff, median days to resolve, and regulator actions recorded in the period. Under those sit the category split, the reopen rate, and any statement the operator has provided.
A complaint closes when the reader confirms the outcome, when the operator provides a settlement record the reader does not dispute within 14 days, or when the reader stops responding after two follow ups. The third route is counted separately and shown as lapsed rather than resolved, because treating silence as satisfaction would flatter every file on the site.
Stalled payouts: 1,187 complaints, 268 still open
Withdrawal delay is the largest category in the register by a wide margin, at 40.7 percent of everything filed. It is also the category with the worst backlog ratio: 22.6 percent of withdrawal complaints were still open at the cutoff.
The median withdrawal complaint took 16 days from filing to a recorded resolution. Within that number, the pattern reported across player accounts is a two stage delay. The first stage is a processing window the operator's published terms describe in hours. The second is an additional review triggered after the request, usually documented in support transcripts as a routine check.
Where operators have responded on the record, the common explanation is a risk review applied at the point of withdrawal rather than at the point of deposit. That explanation is published on the relevant files as given. The register does not endorse it or reject it; it records the date the money was requested and the date the file closed.
Verification holds are the slowest queue
Verification and document complaints numbered 604 in the period, with 141 unresolved at the cutoff and a median of 21 days to close. No other category exceeds 16.
The recurring detail in these files is repeat submission. Readers report supplying the same document more than once, in two cases four times, each submission restarting a stated review window. Where a support transcript shows the document was received, the file records receipt against the date the operator later gave for its request.
Fourteen of the 41 files carry at least one verification complaint that ran past 45 days. Those fourteen are flagged in the register with the number of days, because a document queue that runs six weeks on a balance the player already funded is the single most reported grievance on this site after payout delay itself.
Bonus terms and forfeited balances
Bonus disputes accounted for 512 complaints, 96 of them unresolved at the cutoff, with a median of 12 days to close. The category resolves faster than withdrawals, which is not the same as resolving in the player's favour.
Most of these files turn on a term that was in force but not surfaced at the moment it applied: maximum bet while a wagering requirement is live, game weighting, or a cap on winnings from a credited amount. The register keeps a dated copy of the term as published on the day the complaint arose, which is the only way to report the dispute rather than the argument about it.
Twenty seven files in the period included a forfeited balance above 1,000 units of account currency. Nine of those were reinstated in full after the complaint was raised, six in part, and eight upheld by the operator. Four were open at the cutoff.
The enforcement field, and its limits
Thirty three of the 41 files record zero regulator actions in the period. Those records are clean and the file says so.
The eight files carrying an entry cite the regulator's published notice by date and issuing body. Nothing enters that field from a reader tip, an unnamed source, or a competitor's press release. An open inquiry is not an action, and it is not written up as one.
This is the field most often misread by readers arriving from search, so it is worth stating the direction of the error: a zero here means no published action in the twelve month window, not that the file is empty. Several operators with clean enforcement records carry three digit complaint counts.
What the dossier does not claim
The register measures complaints that reached this newsroom. It does not measure complaints that did not, and it cannot be read as a total. Operators with larger player bases will tend to generate more filings for the same rate of trouble, which is why volume sits beside every ratio on every file.
No page on this site is built from first hand play. There is no test account, no timed withdrawal run, no staff deposit. The evidence base is player accounts, documents supplied by readers, regulator notices, and the operator's published terms.
Individual files are listed on this page in register order. A worked example showing every field is at . The ranked view of the same data sits at /rankings/, the method and funding disclosure at /standards/, and the correction route at /corrections/.