Dear Radka,
Thank you for your reply.
Yes, I contacted the ADR on 18 July and submitted my complaint together with all supporting documents. Unfortunately, I have not yet received any response.
I also attempted to use the ADR contact form several times, but it consistently returned the error:
"There was a problem with your message. Please try again."
I am currently waiting for their reply.
I would also like to mention one point that still concerns me. Although the final decision was based on an alleged connection to multiple accounts, I still do not know the general basis of that conclusion. I fully understand that confidential evidence may not be disclosed. However, I was never informed what type of connection was allegedly identified, nor was it explained what unfair advantage or benefit I supposedly gained from these alleged linked accounts. Without at least a general explanation, it is very difficult for me to understand or respond to such a serious allegation.
also have one question that I still cannot understand.
If the casino had already identified what it considered to be sufficient evidence of linked or multiple accounts, why did it request another complete set of highly sensitive KYC documents from me on 28 April?
Those documents included my identity documents, bank statements, salary slip and other personal information.
If the alleged multiple-account issue had already been sufficient to justify closing my account, I do not understand why I was asked to submit even more sensitive personal documents instead of being informed that the account would be closed.
This sequence of events is one of the main reasons why I remain confused about how my case was handled.
Thank you again for your time.
Kind regards


I expected a higher level of professionalism. Before making a general statement about ADR requirements, you should have verified the obligations imposed by the operator's licensing authority. This is not a matter of opinion. Anjouan Gaming expressly requires all licensed operators to engage at least one Authority-approved ADR provider. Therefore, the issue is not whether "some licences" require ADR, but whether SlotNeo complied with the specific obligations of its own licensing framework.
Despite this, SlotNeo refused to identify its affiliated ADR, and even its complaints form on the website was not functioning. I contacted an approved ADR, only to be informed that the operator was not registered with them.
Another aspect that concerns me is what appears to be a recurring pattern in many SlotNeo complaints. New allegations or additional justifications seem to be introduced only after a player challenges the initial decision. If that perception is accurate, it raises legitimate concerns about procedural fairness. Players should be informed of the reasons affecting their case from the outset and be given a meaningful opportunity to respond, rather than facing new allegations as the dispute progresses.
Furthermore, a fair dispute resolution process should allow both parties to respond to new allegations before a conclusion is reached. In my case, the mediator accepted confidential allegations from the casino and initially closed the complaint without giving me an opportunity to address those allegations or submit a rebuttal. That raises legitimate concerns about procedural fairness.
Before suggesting that I should simply "contact the ADR," it would have been appropriate to verify whether the operator was actually complying with its ADR obligations under its own licensing framework.
Maybe it's time for a rebrand. Instead of "SlotNeo", it should be called DepositsWelcomeWithdrawalsForbidden.com...just a suggestion
Du omdirigeres til casinoets website. Vent et øjeblik. Tjek indstillingerne, hvis du bruger software til annonceblokering.