Betfair Confiscated 2000£

[vinylweatherman]

I should point out that 99 times out of 100 the "details" that need to be shared in order to resolve a case are not the same "details" covered by the data protection laws. I've read those laws and they're quite specific about what they cover, mostly financial information and the like.

Almost without exception I don't need that kind of info from the casino, nor do I want it. I only need basic stuff, a statement of the play patterns involved or how many times the player has re-registered at the casino and so forth. It's usually mundane stuff, not DP-related at all.

Bottom line is that if a casino __wants__ to resolve issues with us they'll almost always be able to find a way that keeps them on the good side of the law. If not then the waiver from the player should allow us to proceed.

However if the casino __does_not__ want to work with us then the DP laws are a very convenient shelter to hide behind. And that is how they are often used. Usually it comes at the end of a string of sour experiences between me and the casino, in other words it's the reason they've pulled out of the legal-beagle hat for closing the door.

I'd like to add a little story here that illustrates a bit how the "Data Protection" thing gets used. A while back, well over a year, we started getting a string of issues against a particular casino. Every one we took to them was a struggle. They gave every excuse they could think of, fought it every step of the way, including of course the old "data protection" story.

Finally there was talk of posting a Warning, or maybe we had posted a Warning, I can't remember. Anyway they suddenly decided to cooperate. One of the excuses they gave for the problems that had occurred to date was that they had not received the emails I said I had sent to them, and resent for their convenience. My contact was pissed off at that point and got his assistant to respond to me for a few days.

Turns out all our communications to them were routinely, and intentionally, filtered off into a folder called "Complainers and Trouble-Makers" which the assistant happily told me they seldom looked at. "Why should we?" he asked. I thought that said a lot about what they thought of us and our efforts. And it also said a lot about how convenient the "data protection" flag was to wave when what they really meant was "piss off!"

Well, Betfair didn't just tell you to "piss off", they strung you along, and wasted your time. Perhaps casinos might like to consider that a persistent stream of complaints could indicate they have GOT IT WRONG in the way they deal with their PAYING CUSTOMERS. They seem not to like players having a voice with clout, but rather like to deal with them individually, and maybe bully them into submission. It's not unlike employers that hate workplace unionisation, and do their best to squash such efforts to give their staff a collective voice. The result is often short term gain, but long term loss.

In many cases, as I said, there ARE other avenues, but these are far less convenient for the player to pursue, and they probably think many will simply give up. This was proven to be the case with UK banks, but once the discontent over unfair charges grew to the point that they found a collective voice, and someone prepared to stick their neck out and call their bluff, they folded like a house of cards, and almost NEVER challenged a county court summons. Only recently have the banks decided to let the courts test this.

I am sure a casino fears a test case of this nature going against them in a court, and will reconsider their evidence when threatened with one, and will pay this player unless they believe their evidence will stand up in court. If they lose, they will not only have to pay, but will be embarrassed. Worse, other players will follow this trailblazer.

Fraudsters would NOT follow through to a court case, since they would know they were just trying it on. I am sure Betfair never thought this player would actually provide that letter granting permission, but would refuse at that hurdle, and go away.

Casinos have too much of an advantage because even though players have won, they don't have physical possession of their money, very unlike a B & M casino, where an unwanted player can be asked to leave, but any money they have already won cannot legally be taken from them without a court order.

[maxd]

I have to admit that in this case things do look a bit odd. Betfair claimed from the start that it was a clear-cut case of player fraud. I asked to see the evidence for this, so the waiver from the player was pretty much fair game AFAIC and there was no delay in requesting that.

So the player provides the waiver and Betfair comes back with "no can do, data protection". I asked what we could do to verify the fraud claim and move on with the issue. "Nothing, data protection" they said, no further information would be provided "unless you are an arbitration or a law enforcement entity." And there it died.

The real issue as far as I was concerned was that their position boiled down to "take our word for it or take a walk". If a player claimed casino fraud and then told me that I'd laugh their complaint right off the table and into the discard pile. I'm not saying player data protection isn't a real issue, obviously it is. But between the law and huge disadvantage that players are in regarding their disputes with casinos there is a lot of middle ground. Is the casino willing to go there or not, that's really what the debate is about here IMO.

In this case I have no doubt that it was the legal department calling the shots, but that's not really the point. The point is that it's a question of can we work together on these issues or are you (the casino) just going to dictate terms and expect everyone down the line to suck it up?

I've handled roughly 1000 of these PABs by now. In my experience if there is a will to discuss the issue then a way can be found, certainly enough to move forward with the thing. If the answer is just "can't do it, end of story, take it or leave it" then that's simply them not wanting to discuss things in good faith in the first place. The legalese is just being used for convenience.

To be fair Betfair is not alone in this. Other casinos and casino groups have taken a similar stance. I honestly believe that they feel we are meddling in what they see as their private affairs: they simply don't want someone else prying into their issues. They see themselves as pretty much the final authority in these things and that's that, no rocking of the boat required thank you very much. They might say "oh, talk to our licensing body" or whatever but let's be honest, how many of those are worth a damn when it comes to protecting player interests? Some, but certainly not all. And in this case certainly not Malta, at least not presently.

FWIW, I wasn't too surprised the Betfair thing ended this way. IMO the door there had been closing for a while, this was just the final push, courtesy of Betfair's legal department I'm sure.