Staying silent doesn’t automatically mean they’re a scam. It could also mean they don’t think the accusation is something they’re responsible for, or they just don’t want to engage publicly.
Your case feels kind of rare too. If you can’t get a solution here, do you think other forums or review sites would actually help, or would it just be the same thing all over again?
Silence alone doesn’t automatically make a casino a scam. But silence after very specific actions does matter.
Bitz offered a $5,000 refund after I raised a documented responsible gaming violation. Casinos don’t offer refunds when they believe their conduct was proper. They do it when they see exposure.
Then, after the complaint was filed, Bitz removed its Self-Exclusion Policy from its website on December 19. That timing isn’t accidental. It’s damage control.
So the idea that Bitz “doesn’t think this is something they’re responsible for” doesn’t survive even basic scrutiny. A refund offer, a policy removal, and then total silence don’t point to innocence.
This case only seems “rare” because most players don’t document violations as they happen or escalate them through independent mediators. The mediators reviewing this aren’t treating it as player abuse. Bitz didn’t treat it that way either when they offered money.
Casinos don’t pay $5,000 to make meritless issues disappear.
What’s more telling is that Bitz still hasn’t explained itself. Instead, paid signature campaign participants and uninformed forum posters keep stepping in to defend them while Bitz stays silent. If Bitz believed its actions complied with its own terms, it could easily explain the timeline and reconcile the facts. It hasn’t.
At the same time, Bitz seems far more concerned with appearances than accountability. Since December 17, nearly ten new fake five-star Trustpilot reviews have appeared, mostly from first-time reviewers using similar language and offering no meaningful detail. That looks like reputation manipulation, not transparency.
If Bitz wanted to clear this up, it could. The fact that it hasn’t says more than any forum argument ever will.
By your logic, Bitz’s silence is justified if they believe the accusation is not something they’re responsible for. That logic doesn’t hold up. Four months ago, Bitz faced an AskGamblers complaint from a sports bettor. Bitz did not stay silent. They cooperated, submitted evidence, and engaged with the mediator. AskGamblers ultimately found that Bitz acted in accordance with its TOS. That’s what an operator does when it believes it handled a matter correctly.
https://www.askgamblers.com/casino-complaints/bitz-casino-bitz-stole-my-3912-usdtSo ask yourself the obvious question. If Bitz truly believed this current accusation lacked merit, why didn’t they do the same thing here. Why not respond. Why not submit evidence. Why not explain their actions under the TOS.
Instead, they offered a private refund, removed the self-exclusion policy from their website, and then went silent.
That pattern does not suggest confidence or innocence. It suggests exposure. Silence after a refund offer and policy removal is not neutrality. It is avoidance.
Well it's becoming clear that you knew what you were getting yourself into which wasn't carried out of ignorance, but still went on any way because you felt you have some clause to backup your action which is clearly against the casino policy.
The facts are there which I think you're ignoring and only focusing on some contractual resolution clause which you think favours your action, perhaps if you can stop making it look as though the blame is on the casino for what you did instead of you who knew the existing working restrictions from your location and still went on to screw them. What were you expecting?
Do you realize how incoherent this sounds? Where is the common sense in your position?
According to you, I’m at fault. I knew exactly what I was doing. My actions were wrong from the start. And yet, despite all of that, Bitz, a casino you insist did nothing wrong, offered a $5,000 refund after violating its own responsible gaming obligations. Rationalize that.
Perhaps you believe Bitz is in the business of refunding players half of their deposits for no reason. Maybe you think issuing 50% refunds to players with “imaginary complaints” is part of their growth strategy.
Here’s a simple experiment you can relate to as a signature campaign participant. Deposit $25 at Bitz. Lose it. Then file a baseless complaint claiming they violated a policy. Demand Bitz to refund you your 25 bucks. Let me know how successful you are at getting even $12.50 refund offer. That should tell you everything you need to know about how casinos actually behave when they believe they’ve done nothing wrong.
You’re arguing a position that Bitz itself has never taken.
If the situation were as “clear” as you claim, Bitz would have said so publicly. They didn’t. Instead, they privately offered a $5,000 refund and then went silent when it was declined. Casinos do not offer refunds when they believe their conduct was proper. They do it when they recognize exposure.
What’s striking is watching third parties construct defenses the operator refuses to stand behind. That’s speculation replacing the record.
And the pattern is obvious. While Bitz stays silent, signature campaign participants and uninformed forum posters rush in to defend them. I can’t relate to that. I don’t get paid to post, and I have no incentive to protect a casino’s image.
If the blame were as obvious as you suggest, Bitz wouldn’t need anyone carrying water for them. They’d simply explain themselves. The reason they haven’t is the same reason they offered money in the first place. The record doesn’t support their conduct, and there’s nothing they can safely say.
Here’s a Trustpilot review from a player in Greece. Not the U.S. A "permitted" jurisdiction. Same core issue. He asked for permanent account closure due to gambling addiction. The response was the same. Refusal. Delay. A forced cooldown. Responsible gambling tools that did not work.
So where is the argument now that the player “shouldn’t have been there in the first place”? Where is the lecture about knowing the rules? So where is the claim now that this is “player abuse,” with someone going casino to casino testing responsible gaming and self-exclusion tools?
Either responsible gaming obligations matter or they don’t. Either self-exclusion requests must be honored or they’re optional. Either the terms mean something or they’re just marketing language.
This Greek player was eligible. No location issue. No jurisdiction problem. No alleged loophole. And yet the same conduct appears. That alone shows this has nothing to do with U.S. residency or some clever setup by a player.
The pattern is the issue, not the player. When users in different countries report the same behavior, the explanation isn’t a coordinated scheme. It’s a systemic failure.
Also note in this case, just like mine, Bitz refuses to respond to the review. Let me guess the explanation. They stayed silent because they “don’t feel responsible,” right?
That logic is easily disproved. Bitz has responded publicly and through mediators in other complaints when they believed their conduct complied with the TOS. Silence is not their default. Selective silence is. When a casino responds in cases it can defend and goes quiet in cases it cannot, the inference is obvious.
So no, this is not about jurisdiction. It is not about schemes. It is not about players trying their luck. It is about a casino that repeatedly mishandles responsible gaming requests, then refuses to explain itself when confronted with the record.
Bitz has refused to answer basic questions about its licensing way back since 2024, right
Pmalek. They have not explained why there is no license verification seal on their website, nor why the Anjouan license register shows their license as expired as of November 21, 2025. Let me guess. By the same logic being pushed here, their silence must mean they are fully licensed and regulated and simply “don’t feel responsible” for addressing those questions. That explanation makes as little sense here as it does everywhere else in this dispute. Silence in the face of specific, verifiable licensing questions is not a sign of confidence. It is avoidance.
[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]
