A 2026 reviewer said they spent months providing identity and address documents, after which Thunderpick blocked their balance and cited an alleged arbitrage violation of Terms 5.1 and 15.1. The reviewer denies engaging in arbitrage and says Thunderpick did not explain the specific betting activity involved. Thunderpick's own public reply states a review identified breaches of its terms and that the decision to end the relationship was final — one of the few cases here where both the player's and the operator's positions are publicly visible.

Not stated

"Thunderpick's public response cites a review that found breaches of its Terms (5.1 / 15.1); no further detail given publicly"

Contested — operator says a review found terms breaches — This case was closed without a clear resolution either way.