Oleksandr
Update – additional information regarding my case
I am posting this update because there are additional circumstances that were not mentioned in my previous review. Over the past five months I have made several attempts to resolve this situation directly with CashInStyle. I contacted support multiple times and provided all information and evidence that was requested. My intention has always been to resolve the matter in a constructive way rather than escalate it publicly. I also tried to reach out through different channels including support tickets, Discord, LinkedIn, and I contacted Torox as well. In these conversations I was repeatedly informed that the final decision regarding my case depends solely on the platform owner (Mo). One of the reasons mentioned for blocking my account was the assumption that I may have completed the same offers on another platform (Earnlab). To clarify this situation, I recorded a video from my Earnlab account and also provided the requested screenshots. Based on this information, the disputed offers do not appear as completed on that platform. Another important point is that the offers in question were completed before the account was blocked and were paid for by the advertiser. I was also informed that there were no chargebacks or reversals related to these tasks. At the moment $208 remains locked on my account. Because of this, I would like to ask a simple question: If the advertiser confirmed the completed tasks and the platform received payment for them, why is the user payment still being withheld more than five months later? During this time I also stated that I would be willing to consider a compromise solution, including partial payment, in order to resolve the situation and move forward. Unfortunately, I have not received any proposal on how this issue could be resolved. I still hope that this case can be reviewed again and that a fair resolution can be found. UPDATE Additional clarification regarding the situation Since the company mentioned that the case is already “closed”, I would like to clarify several factual points related to this situation. From my perspective, the key aspects of the issue remain the following: 1. The advertiser paid the platform for the tasks that I completed. 2. Torox confirmed that there were no issues or complaints regarding the quality or validity of the completed offers. 3. The funds for these completed offers are visible on my account balance, however I cannot access or use them because my account was blocked. 4. I provided evidence (including a video and screenshots) showing that the disputed offers were not completed on another platform. However, no proposal or possible solution to resolve the situation has been offered so far. Because of this, my main question remains the same. If the advertiser confirmed the tasks and the platform received payment for them, it is difficult for me to understand why the user payment is still inaccessible several months later. In the response above it is also stated that these rules exist to protect advertisers. However, according to the information I received, the advertiser did not report any issues with the completed tasks and the offers were confirmed. For this reason, I am simply trying to understand how keeping the user funds inaccessible in this situation helps protect the advertiser if the work was completed and accepted. I also want to clarify that my attempts to contact support through different channels were simply an effort to resolve the situation. During these conversations I repeatedly stated that I would be open to a compromise solution, including partial payment, in order to close the matter. I still hope that this situation can be reviewed again and that a fair and transparent resolution can be found.
Response from CashInStyleMar 14, 2026
Thank you for your message. It’s important to note that this is a duplicate review and the situation described here is identical to the previous case we already addressed. For transparency, we are sharing our prior reply since nothing has changed: Our previous response: We understand this situation is frustrating, but for transparency to readers, this case was fully reviewed and concluded in December, and the decision was clearly communicated at that time. This is also not the first time this matter has been raised publicly. You have previously posted multiple reviews about the same dispute. We responded to those to provide context, and those earlier duplicate reviews were later removed by Trustpilot for violating guidelines after we provided proof of rule violations and the user’s pattern of targeting our business. Since those reviews are no longer visible, we are providing this context again for transparency. The account action was taken due to documented violations of our offer participation policies, which exist to protect advertisers and the platform ecosystem as a whole. Advertisers rely on platforms like ours to reach new, genuine users for their apps, games, and services. Activity that conflicts with that requirement—including patterns associated with repeating or cycling through the same offers—is strictly prohibited under our Terms of Service. We apply these rules consistently to all members. Since the decision was issued, there have been repeated attempts to reverse it through multiple channels including: 1-Opening numerous support tickets 2- Contacting us using different email addresses 3- Messaging us through Discord via different accounts Posting repeated public reviews While members are free to contact support, using multiple channels or identities to revisit a final compliance decision does not change the outcome. Once a review is completed and closed, continuing to escalate the same case publicly or through different routes does not override platform policy. The VPN/location topic mentioned was a separate compliance check and not the primary basis for the decision. All compliance factors are reviewed together when determining account eligibility. Maintaining strict traffic quality is a core part of our relationships with our partners. Partners such as Torox are aware of this specific case and understand how seriously we approach compliance and traffic quality. We have not received any concerns or disagreement from them regarding our handling of this matter. Protecting advertiser trust is essential to keeping opportunities available for the broader member base. These decisions are never personal but are necessary to ensure fairness, compliance, and long-term stability of the platform. As stated previously, the decision is final and based on documented evidence. Posting duplicate reviews or attempting to escalate the same case through multiple channels will not change the outcome. We hope this clarifies the situation.



