👑🏆👑BITZ.io Cryptocasino| 5 BTC Daily withdrawal | $1.5kk lvl up reward 👑🏆👑

[SeriouslyGiveaway]

I noticed that some people experience slowness when they access Bitz.io through their mobile phones. I didn't experience this probably because my device has higher specs and is using iOS, as far as I know iOS generally offers better optimization for browsers and web apps compared to many Android devices.

So the solution might be for a better user experience, use a device with better specifications, or use a PC/laptop if that is possible.

It can be from the OS but there are contributions from the product development and optimization of Bitz for mobile devices and which OS they focus their application on. I don't use Bitz on mobile so I don't know but that saying is true generally.

iOS can be better than Android but with an application, how it works well, bad on iOS and how it operates better or worse than on Android, it depends on how the applications on two OS programmed by Bitz's product development team.

I don't use Bitz application on mobile but this page shows that they only have available application on Android OS.
https://bitz.io/download-app

[viljy]

I explicitly informed Bitz that I was a United States resident and quoted the very language from Section 3.3 you now rely on. Under their own terms, my account should have been blocked immediately.

I apologize for interfering with your problem, but it seems to me that you are not interpreting the TOS exactly. According to 3.3, you were not allowed to create an account at all. However, the casino is not obligated to block your account. Clause 6.8 does not bind the casino to anything at all. To summarize, it turns out that you violated 3.3 intentionally.
In such a situation, I don't think you have much chance of having your complaint resolved.

And yet, look at how it looks from the outside. It is unclear why you registered at a casino where you were forbidden to register. But then you limited yourself, but at the same time you made a deposit and played (if I understood correctly). It looks at least strange, or as some kind of your intent for some purpose.

P.S. Is there really no online casino for citizens of the United States without violating the TOS? Why create problems for yourself...

[Russlenat]

P.S. Is there really no online casino for citizens of the United States without violating the TOS? Why create problems for yourself...

That’s actually a great question. If I were in the position of the user complaining, and I knowingly knew I wasn’t allowed to play but still tried anyway, I probably wouldn’t complain anymore. At that point, it really goes back to me.

Complaining about it would just look like I’m blaming the casino for not babysitting me, when I already knew the rules in the first place.

[Pmalek]

Hi Pmalek:
Thank you for taking the time to go over to Casino Guru and actually read the complaint.  It’s interesting that you are now selectively citing Bitz’s Terms of Service and pointing to provisions you believe have full force and effect in this dispute.

The only reason I noticed it and went to check the T&Cs is because 9.9/10 crypto casinos ban players from the United States and don't allow them to play. Seeing CasinoGuru mentioning that you were from the US I went to check if that's also the case with Bitz, and it was.

You reference Section 3.3 regarding restricted territories. Yet throughout this entire thread, you have consistently refused to give any weight at all to Section 6.8 of the same TOS and Bitz’s now-deleted Self-Exclusion Policy (https://bitz.io/self-policy). Apparently, in your view, some sections of the TOS matter and others do not.

I have never taken Responsible Gambling guidelines as anything serious and consider them bull**** anyways. They are as effective as putting up metal fences against mosquitoes. They don't work. They can just fly threw or above them. If someone wants to gamble, they will gamble.

That inconsistency aside, I anticipated you would raise Section 3.3. After Bitz refused my self-exclusion request and still before any deposits were made, I sought an independent basis to have my account closed. I explicitly informed Bitz that I was a United States resident and quoted the very language from Section 3.3 you now rely on. Under their own terms, my account should have been blocked immediately.

Point 3.4. of the same terms state that it's the player's responsibility to ensure that they are allowed to gamble at Bitz before opening an account. Since you are from the US and you registered an account at Bitz, you broke rule 3.4. You shouldn't have been there in the first place, regardless what a customer support rep says. You were the one who said that the casino can't cherry-pick the terms they like and avoid those they don't. Something along those lines. At the same time, you seem fine doing the same thing. You point out a term that you think should go in your favor, neglecting one that isn't in your favor.

3.4. When attempting to open an account or using the Website, it is the responsibility of the player to verify whether gambling is legal in that particular jurisdiction.

It gets worse. On December 15, Bitz support, through the same representative involved elsewhere in this matter, claimed that players could play from any country, with the caveat that there “may be issues loading games or the website.” That position directly contradicts Section 3.3 and further demonstrates how casually Bitz treated its own rules.

Not a good look and a violation. I agree with you there. You both violated the same rule. But the terms of service have precedence over what customer support says.

Pmalek, I respect your right to hold personal responsibility views. I’m not asking you to abandon them. I’m asking that the same standard be applied to the operator. The record establishes Bitz’s culpability for its own conduct, regardless of whether you choose to acknowledge it.

Bitz shouldn't have allowed a US player to gamble on their online casino. That's my opinion. But the US player should also not have been at the website at all. It was the player's responsibility to make sure of that. Since you inspected their terms in detail, you couldn't have missed point 3.4. that goes hand-in-hand with 3.3. I have already shared my feelings about Responsible Gambling guidelines and how ineffective and silly I think they are.

I am sorry, but my opinion hasn't changed. If you had won and Bitz refused to pay you your winnings because they didn't want to, I would have supported you and you would have me in your corner. However, that isn't the case here. You were looking for a specific service. That service was online gambling. You found what you were looking for in Bitz. They offered you the service to gamble online. You gambled and, sadly, you lost. That's it.

Again, if you are a true addict, I am sorry for you. I hope you will get control of your life and get the help you need.

[ptaylor78]

Bitz shouldn't have allowed a US player to gamble on their online casino. That's my opinion. But the US player should also not have been at the website at all. It was the player's responsibility to make sure of that. Since you inspected their terms in detail, you couldn't have missed point 3.4. that goes hand-in-hand with 3.3. I have already shared my feelings about Responsible Gambling guidelines and how ineffective and silly I think they are.

I am sorry, but my opinion hasn't changed. If you had won and Bitz refused to pay you your winnings because they didn't want to, I would have supported you and you would have me in your corner. However, that isn't the case here. You were looking for a specific service. That service was online gambling. You found what you were looking for in Bitz. They offered you the service to gamble online. You gambled and, sadly, you lost. That's it.

Again, if you are a true addict, I am sorry for you. I hope you will get control of your life and get the help you need.

What you’re advocating is the functional equivalent of jury nullification. Fortunately, in this matter, you’re not a juror. You’re just a guy (or gal) on the internet with a keyboard and a smartphone.

You’re discarding the governing terms and substituting your personal beliefs about what “should” matter. No mediator, regulator, or court evaluates disputes that way. They apply the rules as written to the facts as established. You openly reject responsible gaming obligations and self-exclusion policies that are part of the TOS as meaningless. That alone makes your view irrelevant in a dispute resolution context. Personal ideology never comes into play.

Pointing to alleged U.S. ineligibility doesn’t change that analysis. A term that the operator itself applies inconsistently or ignores does not excuse separate, affirmative violations of other written obligations. One breach does not nullify all others.

That approach might be tolerated in forum debate. It has zero value in any process that actually resolves disputes.

For the second time, I’m not here for empathy, concern, or life advice from an internet forum "legend". Everything is fine on my end. The issue is compliance with written obligations. Nothing else.

I posted in the ANN because I do value thoughtful opinions and analysis and I thought Bitz would keep their word about addressing player concerns regarding their casino. There is a limit. I don’t find value in feedback that dismisses the terms as written and replaces them with what someone thinks the terms should be.

Every land-based casino I’ve played at, from Wynn and Bellagio in Las Vegas to Casino Baden-Baden in Germany, has responsible gaming tools and offers self-exclusion. Every reputable major online casino does the same. Those systems exist because the industry, regulators, and licensors require them.

So your opinion that responsible gaming is “BS” is irrelevant. It carries no weight in the real world where these obligations are mandatory and enforced. Until you and others who share that view gain the power to abolish responsible gaming and self-exclusion entirely, the terms remain binding, and casinos are expected to follow them.

One final observation. In the past two weeks, you’ve posted in this topic repeatedly. Seven or eight replies by now. Guess how many replies Bitz_Casino has made here. Zero. Despite multiple members directly calling for an explanation, Bitz has remained silent. Unlike you, they cannot defend themselves with rhetoric or personal opinion. Their silence speaks for itself.

Instead of addressing the issues raised here, Bitz_Casino has spent its time flooding Trustpilot from December 17 to today with suspicious five-star reviews from first-time accounts and dodging AskGamblers and Casino Guru, apparently hoping the complaints close as unresolved so they can absorb a safety index and rating reduction and move on. That strategy says far more than any forum reply ever could.

Here is where both mediations currently stand.

Casino Guru has formally invited Bitz to respond. AskGamblers is still awaiting information from Bitz and has warned that continued non-response will result in the complaint being closed as unresolved with an associated ranking penalty.



Despite being invited by independent mediators whose role is to apply facts to written terms, Bitz has remained silent. In every other Casino Guru and AskGamblers complaint filed against Bitz, they responded. Their silence here stands out. It suggests they reply when they think they have a defensible position, and stay quiet when they don’t.

Thanks for the discourse. I don’t see much left to discuss. Given your style, I expect you’ll reply anyway, so I’ll give you the last word.

[BALIK]

my first bet on Bitz.io , so nice and smooth, todays Villarreal vs Alaves match looks to be quite exciting. If you look at the odd and the previous H2H match record, you will easily understand that Villarreal is the clear favorite at home. They are quite high in the table and their record at home is also quite strong. On the other hand Alaves have been losing many times this season when playing at the other ground

Alaves away form is just as shaky as their consistency is. So it seem that Villarreal will control the match today and can score more than one goal. I think Villarreal can win by 2 - 1 or 2 - 0, and the possibility of over 2.5 goal is also quite strong. All in all, if you want to bet relying on Villarreals victory or more goals can be a pretty solid option, . Good luck !

[ptaylor78]

Bitz Casino claims to possess a Curacao Master License and that it's owned and operated by Win Sector N.V. If you visit the official website of the alleged owners, there isn't much information there.

Raj.Bet is similar to Bitz in that you can't find license information on their website. Both casinos claim to be owned by Win Sector N.V.
If you try to authenticate the two websites to check if their licenses are valid via https://www.curacao-egaming.com/public-and-players/authenticity, the result is "Unlicensed."

And while we're at it, Bitz_Casino, since you've popped back into the forum, do you mind to also explain about your license and why doesn't any seal of validation being displayed [and assured the players of your casino] on your site?

Separately, we want to inform you that we are currently obtaining a new license from the island of Anjuan, and there will be an update on the website in the next few weeks. We will inform you separately when the license is updated on the website, and we will celebrate this event together.

But you're still under GC until July? If you are, I think it'll be best to still put their seal of validation on your site. If you're not, then it'll be best to scrap any claim of being under GC altogether for the time being.

Bitz_Casino:
Based on the above, there appears to have been unresolved issues in the past regarding verification of your licensing status while operating under a Curaçao license. Do you mind kindly explaining your current license.

Your website states that Bitz.io is licensed and regulated by the Government of the Autonomous Island of Anjouan, Union of Comoros, under License No. ALSI-202411066-F12. However, unlike other operators holding valid Anjouan licenses such as BC.Game (see below), no official license seal or verification badge is displayed on your site to allow players to independently confirm this status.

In addition, the Anjouan Gaming License Register appears to show this license as expired as of November 21, 2025. Please clarify whether this information is accurate, and if not, provide confirmation of your current licensing status and its validity.

Clear confirmation would be helpful for transparency and player assurance.