Betfair Bonus Fiasco

[Mousey]

This thread is so long... I may have missed this info...

Has Betfair also returned all deposits of losing players who participated in this bonus promo?

I'm just thinking that their psychic -we have concluded that your bets were carried out with the express purpose of abusing the bonus - must be on the ball on this one.

We all know there is no such thing as bonus abuse. Any/every player deposits with the 'intent' to WIN.

 

[anniemac]

VWM,

If Betfair got handed their butt in a sling by the UK courts, then I guess they would be in a pickle especially since they are now big in the US horseracing arena. You know how well the gambling scene works here in the US.

 

[Joaopc56]

Betfair didn´t pay me my initial deposit on the Happy Hour Bonus, neither my accumulated comp points from previous bets, before HH promo, in a total of 1300€ (deposit + comp points).
Also there are reports that they´re doing the same thing to other Portuguese players (I don´t know about other countries sorry). In portuguese foruns there are reports that betfair is clossing winning accounts on casino and confiscating the winnings, giving the deposit back not to everyone. Just be careful. Avoid their casino, it was my advice. My story is bad enough to scare anyone.

Until someone really puts them in trouble they will carry on with this. It seems to me that the sports exchange is good and works well and fair, but not their casino section. They need to be scared and advised by someone with "power", if you understand. Sorry about my poor english.

As for me I´m not allowed to speak about my situation status but it´s more like me vs bank than me vs betfair.

Cheers everyone and please avoid betfair.

 

[pokeraddict]

Rumor has it from a few sources that Betfair is awaiting adjudication from the ASA. What would a ruling from the ASA do if it does not go Betfair's way? Does that mean they would no longer be whitelisted?

 

[jetset]

I think you might be thinking of this report, which appeared on Casinomeister News over a week back:


ASA TELLS BETFAIR TO WITHDRAW TV AD IN ITS CURRENT FORM

Advert not acceptable in its current form and deemed as misleading

Betting exchange Betfair has been instructed by the British Advertising Standards Authority (ASA ) to stop airing its latest TV campaign in its current form after receiving twenty-three complaints from the public.

The advertisement shows two men in a pub discussing a sports match while a third man pushes between them and begins to act as a go-between, passing comments back and forth between the two. A voice-over then says "On Betfair you cut out the middle man, which means you win bigger".

All 23 viewers challenged whether the suggestion in the advert that Betfair operated without a middleman was incorrect and misleading and others felt it misleading because it failed to clarify that Betfair took commission on winning bets.

The ASA ruled that the ad breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 5.1.1 and 5.1.2 (Misleading advertising) and ordered that the ad should not be broadcast again in its current form.

AFAIK there are no other ASA cases against Betfair, but I'm open to correction on that.

I don't believe the above is related to the issue here, where it increasingly appears as if Betfair has managed to 'get away with it'

 

[Bobo Fett]

It does appear that the ASA is looking into this:

Dear xxx

Thank you for your e-mail.

Further to your query, the ASA did launch a formal investigation into the Betfair “Casino happy hour promotion”. We will be publishing our findings in this case shortly. Our weekly adjudications are published every Wednesday and you can sign up to receive alerts of which advertisers are subject to ASA rulings here

Kind regards

Matt Wilson

Enquiries
Advertising Standards Authority

So I would also be interested if anyone knows the answers to PA's questions:

What would a ruling from the ASA do if it does not go Betfair's way? Does that mean they would no longer be whitelisted?

 

[jetset]

This could be an exciting development, if only because ASA rulings get a lot of publicity, and this issue needs to continue to be aired imo.

The ASA's punitive powers may not be as strong as one would like (see their scope here:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

) but there can be little doubt that any ruling against Betfair that was disregarded by that company has the potential to be very bad news.

 

[vinylweatherman]

The problem is that the ASA does not currently have the remit to investigate internet advertising, which is how this promo was offered. This will change shortly (March 1st), to cover internet advertising too. No doubt the ASA are looking into whether the promotion AS ADVERTISED was misleading in the light of how it was actually IMPLEMENTED. The ASA can STILL make a ruling, although they may not be able to impose any penalties retrospectively.

It would be nice if the ASA DID rule after March 1st, and made a RETROSPECTIVE application of a penalty against Betfair, would serve them right

More of a worry should be recent discussions within the Government about the advertising of online gambling, where a ruling that such adverts are misleading would make the government MORE likely to make harsh changes to the current regime that would impact ALL whitelisted companies, not just Betfair.

The other companies may even blame Betfair for behaving in a way that made the government "wake up & smell the coffee", and ignore all their lobbying efforts.

Maybe there should be an investigation into the practice of casinos "charging back" withdrawals already paid where NO actual "mistake" was made, and NO actual terms were broken (which was the case with this Betfair promotion).

Betfair may have got away with it, or it could be a case of revenge better as a "dish served cold" later in the year.

 

[The Dude]

The problem is that the ASA does not currently have the remit to investigate internet advertising, which is how this promo was offered...

Are you sure about this? I received a complaint from them a couple of years ago that concerned a promotion we ran in the forum. Some member complained that I didn't state that players should read the promo's terms and conditions

So since then I've made sure to tell people that "Terms and Conditions apply - read 'em!"

 

[vinylweatherman]

Are you sure about this? I received a complaint from them a couple of years ago that concerned a promotion we ran in the forum. Some member complained that I didn't state that players should read the promo's terms and conditions

So since then I've made sure to tell people that "Terms and Conditions apply - read 'em!"

I think they have always taken an interest, but didn't have FORMAL powers. It is being widely advertised on UK radio that these FORMAL powers to regulate the internet start on March 1st, coupled with advice for webmasters to ensure their sites are compliant with ASA rules in time for the implementation.

They may have told you that your offer didn't meet their standards, but maybe they had no actual powers to FORCE you to do anything about it other than to publish their ruling.

The powers would now enable them to REQUIRE that a webmaster withdraws an advert that fails to meet the standards, or face penalties.

 

[uki]

ASA have investigated the HH promo. They have made a ruling. It will be released on 23rd Feb. Until then the findings are confidential.

 

[vinylweatherman]

ASA have investigated the HH promo. They have made a ruling. It will be released on 23rd Feb. Until then the findings are confidential.

Good, whatever the outcome, let BETFAIR sweat for a week for a change.

I wonder if Betfair have already been given the ruling, and the delay is just to give them time to appeal, or prepare a response.

This WILL get the attention of the stock market, even if the actual fiasco didn't make much of an impression.

 

[uki]

They already have a copy of the ruling. The delay is just the ASA process - ruling goes to the press people Monday.

Doubt the stock market will give a fig.

 

[Joaopc56]

I contacted with betfair about this "ASA" thing and here is their reply:

"Dear Joao,

Thank you for your email, however we unfortunately cannot take your word for it that this is the case. Until we hear from the relevant party we will not be discussing this matter with you.

We apologise for this inconvenience though I'm sure you can understand the reasons. "

Can I have my 32000€ back? New hopes... at least they replied. They´re obviously scared about this

 

[vinylweatherman]

I contacted with betfair about this "ASA" thing and here is their reply:

"Dear Joao,

Thank you for your email, however we unfortunately cannot take your word for it that this is the case. Until we hear from the relevant party we will not be discussing this matter with you.

We apologise for this inconvenience though I'm sure you can understand the reasons. "

Can I have my 32000€ back? New hopes... at least they replied. They´re obviously scared about this

They know damn well "this is the case", and are making themselves look really STUPID by pretending this is unfounded rumour.

IF the ruling went in their favour, they are being rather defensive, so maybe it DIDN'T go in their favour.

The ASA will only rule on the advertising though, and have no power to make Betfair honour the promotion as advertised.

Any ruling against Betfair would probably be limited to a statement that the advertising of the promotion was misleading.

What such a ruling WILL do though is make a successful court action against Betfair more likely, since the ASA ruling would form part of the argument that players who played the promotion as advertised have been treated unfairly.

Betfair probably know this, and know also that anything they might say could make matters even WORSE for them. The regulations allow them to stall for time till the 23rd, and they are hardly likely to give up the opportunity of a few days of damage control planning.

An ASA ruling could also form part of a complaint to their regulator, but since this is Malta, a court action would have more chance.

Betfair have already had ONE ASA ruling go against them, so it is worth seeing whether this has affected the share price. TWO adverse rulings in the space of 2 weeks might be enough to make the stock market take notice, because they would worry that Betfair had systemic operational problems, rather than having made a one-off silly blunder.

 

[threescatters]

What can ASA actually do here, will betfair have to alter any future adverts for example if they say betfair falsley advertised happy hour?

 

[vinylweatherman]

What can ASA actually do here, will betfair have to alter any future adverts for example if they say betfair falsley advertised happy hour?

That's about it really, and it only applies to adverts made after 1st March. The rest is really down to the embarrassment a second ruling against them in as many weeks will have. It might imply that they are prepared to misbehave UNLESS they are prevented from doing so by a law or a regulation, rather than behave simply because it is the "right thing to do".

Falling foul of a regulator also means that a company is more closely watched by said regulator for a while, and probably by members of the public.

The interesting thing about a complaint to the ASA is that one does NOT have to be a victim in order to make a complaint, one just has to see the advert, and say that it mislead you, or would mislead others, and give some supporting argument.

The TV ad was investigated because of a mere 23 complaints, it doesn't take much, and I am sure we can drum up more than 23 players who got "shafted" by Betfair's happy hour promo.

WE should also keep an eye out for Betfair REPEATING this promo with the SAME advert, which is now KNOWN to misrepresent the "spirit" of the offer, and would result in players who took up the offer as advertised AGAIN running the risk of having winnings confiscated.

Given that the first time was DESPITE 5 senior staff members having to "vet" the offer before it went out, I can see Betfair making a similar cock-up with one or more future offers.

 

[Joaopc56]

I hope that this ASA thing can stop betfair from closing accounts in profit in their casino. At least In Portuguese forums there are a lot of players wich win in their casino with their 200€ bonus offer and betfair is declining to pay the winnings returning the initial deposit. This is happening a lot and there are dedicated topics in portuguese forums about this. Hopefully with this ASA thing this situation can change and they change their terms or pay the winners.

 

[daywalker]

I hope that this ASA thing can stop betfair from closing accounts in profit in their casino. At least In Portuguese forums there are a lot of players wich win in their casino with their 200€ bonus offer and betfair is declining to pay the winnings returning the initial deposit. This is happening a lot and there are dedicated topics in portuguese forums about this. Hopefully with this ASA thing this situation can change and they change their terms or pay the winners.

It won't stop them doing that.
As stated above the ASA thing (if the compliant is upheld) will help anyone who has taken legal action against them but it's still no guarantee of those people getting paid put.

 

[vinylweatherman]

I hope that this ASA thing can stop betfair from closing accounts in profit in their casino. At least In Portuguese forums there are a lot of players wich win in their casino with their 200€ bonus offer and betfair is declining to pay the winnings returning the initial deposit. This is happening a lot and there are dedicated topics in portuguese forums about this. Hopefully with this ASA thing this situation can change and they change their terms or pay the winners.

One would have to check that these players have not broken any legally binding terms. Whether a term is valid or not depends on the relevant consumer protection laws.

In the UK, it would be complaints to trading standards, rather than the ASA, that could move this forward. Trading Standards sometimes take a "class action", called a "supercomplaint", through the courts to test the legality of something that is creating large volumes of complaints.

It might be worth checking whether other EU countries are covered when the company concerned is registered in the UK.

It seems the ASA might NOT "buy" this corporate game where the casino has been shifted offshore to a Malta based subsidiary.

IF the ASA makes a ruling against the CASINO side, all bets are ON with regard to court action.

 

[GrandMaster]

The ASA only regulates advertisements. It may fine Betfair, it may stop Betfair from publishing certain ads, but it won't force Betfair to pay up.

 

[Joaopc56]

Yes I understood, but it could kind of "scare" them so they think twice before declining winnings of a winning player.

 

[daywalker]

Yes I understood, but it could kind of "scare" them so they think twice before declining winnings of a winning player.

No, the ASA are pretty toothless; Betfair won't be scared into paying up. Anyone who has a court case has a chance but if you're just sitting there moaning on forums and doing nothing about it you'll get nothing.

 

[FiletOFish]

ASA Adjudication on Betfair Ltd
Betfair Ltd
Winslow Road
Hammersmith Embankment
London
W6 9HP
Date:
23 February 2011
Media:
E-mail, Internet (sales promotion)
Sector:
Leisure
Number of complaints:
10
Complaint Ref:
142351
Ad

An e-mail and a website promotion for Betfair Ltd.

a. The e-mail stated "CASINO'S HAPPY HOUR PROMOTION ... All deposits made between 21.00 GMT to 23.59 GMT on the 13th November 2010 will be matched 50% up to £100 with a Casino bonus".

b. The website promotion stated "Get Unlimited 50% reload Bonuses in the Betfair Casino on Saturdays from 21.00 until 23.59 GMT! Your Bonuses are valid for a full 12 hrs ...".
Issue

1. Two complainants, who took advantage of promotion (a) and won, challenged whether the promotion was administered fairly because his winnings and bonuses were removed.

2. Seven complainants, who took advantage of promotion (b) and won, challenged whether the promotion was administered fairly because their winnings and bonuses were removed.

3. One complainant, who took advantage of promotion (b), won and withdrew his winnings, challenged whether the promotion was administered fairly because he was subsequently instructed to credit his account.

CAP Code (Edition 11)
8.17.1
CAP Code (Edition 12)
3.18.28.148.15.1
Response

Betfair Ltd (Betfair) said, after the promotion ran, they had become aware that a number of customers had displayed irregular or unusual playing or betting patterns which Betfair deemed to be abusive, and subsequently took action. They said the promotion was administered with adequate resources and that, due to the limited period of three hours, during which the promotion was operative, it was not possible to analyse customers' gaming activity until the promotion had ended. They said they could not disclose details of the complainants activities because they would risk other customers avoiding their security and anti-fraud measures. They said they appreciated that complainants were disappointed but did not believe they had justifiable grounds for complaints.

Assessment

Upheld

The ASA acknowledged that the complainants were willing to disclose their account details, so Betfair could explain how their playing or betting patterns had breached the promotions terms and conditions. We noted Betfair said they could not disclose customer activities. In the absence of any evidence that the complainants, or any other players, had their winnings and bonuses legitimately removed, or had been instructed to credit their account with good reason, we considered that the promotion had not been administered fairly. We concluded that the promotion breached the Code.

The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 8.2 (Sales promotions), 8.14 and 8.15.1 (Administration) and 8.17.1 (Significant conditions for promotions).

Action

The ad must not appear again in its current form.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)

 

[LinkinFart]

ASA ruling may not seem much at the moment but it definitely is a start.

 

[vinylweatherman]

It seems Betfair's use of the "we can't say in case we help other fraudsters" did NOT work, in fact it made things WORSE, since the ASA considered this lack of evidence as enough to find Betfair GUILTY of not acting fairly.

The silly thing is, they refused to disclose a record of wagers and outcomes, and NOT anything about how their security team determines which accounts are "suspicious".

It DOES mean, however, that Betfair can NEVER use this promotion again, and this deprives them of considerable marketing clout when it comes to making their promotions look better than the rest.

It also shows that the ASA do NOT consider the casino to operate under "Maltese law" when it comes to the advertising code, and they were judged under UK law.

This WOULD help any court case, because refusal to assist the ASA will count against them, and they WILL have to produce these game histories to defend a winning players' claim, else they would automatically LOSE the case so long as the player can show that they did nothing in breach of the PUBLISHED terms.

We just need ONE court case to test this, and if it DOES go in favour of the player, we will have moved a big step foward in getting fair treatment for players.
It will mean the end of deliberately misleading promotions backed by an "F U Clause", and the TRUE and FULL terms will have to be specific.


Betfair have certainly scared away some of their players with this whole affair

 

[GrandMaster]

Action

The ad must not appear again in its current form.

This will really show Betfair.

 

[vinylweatherman]

This will really show Betfair.

Where's the

Of course Betfair won't use this again, but what they MIGHT do is try to pull a similar marketing "stunt" in the future, and this could lead to a THIRD adverse ruling by the ASA.

Continually running foul of the law and/or regulators DOES have a steady and detrimental effect on a company, especially one listed on the stick exchange.

They may have "got off lightly" this time with a "warning", but repeated violations could lead to fines, or the attentions of a regulator with more clout when it comes to imposing penalties. Investors will start to be net sellers of shares if they think a company has entered a long term decline, and continually getting rebuked or fined by regulators IS a worry for the medium to long term. Their shares could fall victim to speculators, and become rather volatile, and this will deter long term investors. A company that appears to lurch from one crisis to another, like our banks did, finds their shares' volatility is further enhanced by the manipulations of "short sellers" and "day traders", who seek to profit from a companies' misfortunes.

An unlisted company could probably ride out such a storm, but a LISTED company has no such luxury.

 

[Scooter7]

I never expected the ruling to have a direct impact on the confiscated funds scenarios, but it's nice to see that the ASA made the correct, albeit toothless decision.

I'm far more interested in seeing how the (hopefully) numerous court challenges shape up, especially the one from Portugal regarding the seemingly illegal seizure of funds directly from a player's bank account.

As a group, please let's keep an eye on this and make sure it doesn't disappear from sight and mind (the way a rogue operator would want it to).

 

[uki]

I'm far more interested in seeing how the (hopefully) numerous court challenges shape up, especially the one from Portugal regarding the seemingly illegal seizure of funds directly from a player's bank account.

So far I am only aware of 1 court case - anyone else here want to confirm they have started proceedings?

PM me if you don't want to say anyting in public.

 

[HeadHunter]

And watch out for Confidentiality Clauses kicking in.

Take it that "no news" means they have paid.

 

[vinylweatherman]

I never expected the ruling to have a direct impact on the confiscated funds scenarios, but it's nice to see that the ASA made the correct, albeit toothless decision.

I'm far more interested in seeing how the (hopefully) numerous court challenges shape up, especially the one from Portugal regarding the seemingly illegal seizure of funds directly from a player's bank account.

As a group, please let's keep an eye on this and make sure it doesn't disappear from sight and mind (the way a rogue operator would want it to).

This player is taking action against the bank, and is not allowed to comment on this until this has run it's course. The hope is that the bank will then take action against Betfair

So far I am only aware of 1 court case - anyone else here want to confirm they have started proceedings?

PM me if you don't want to say anyting in public.

One is enough to get the ball rolling. Others may be waiting for the outcome before submitting their own cases, bearing in mind that there is no guarantee of the outcome, despite what our common sense is telling us is the most probable one.

And watch out for Confidentiality Clauses kicking in.

Take it that "no news" means they have paid.

What normally happens is that a "settlement for an undisclosed sum" is negotiated, usually BEFORE a case comes to court. This allows the defending company to settle individual cases without accepting liability, or being found liable, in open court.
I believe this is the more likely outcome of these cases, unless Betfair believe they have a watertight case that will WIN any court action against a player.

The WORST outcome for Betfair is misjudging this, taking this all the way and then LOSING in court. Not only will they have to pay up, plus costs, but this will be in OPEN COURT, allowing scrutiny of all the evidence, negotiations, and basis for the final judgement. This would be GREAT for those cases following, as they could use similar legal arguments, and know what Betfair's likely defence will be. Further, if Betfair contradicts any sworn evidence given in the first case because it "didn't work", it could find itself open to charges of perjury, which is a CRIMINAL, rather than CIVIL, matter.

Betfair are on shaky ground, because these are NOT breaches of the terms of the offer, but the casino simply "exercising it's discretion" to not pay certain players based on vague and SECRET internal policies.

 

[petro]

Saga Continues

Justin7 at Sports Book Review had a Youtube up about Betfair's Happy Hour Promotion.

I made a comment for the video saying; "Why are Betfair still rated A by SBR when they have stolen hundreds of thousands of dollars from players?"

Within 48 hours the video was torn down with the message; "This video has been removed due to legal reasons."
What's the bet it was because of my comment?

I contacted SBR via email about this asking the same question; "Why does Betfair still have an A rating?"
No reply.

Seems the only one willing to mete out justice is Casinomeister.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Justin7 at Sports Book Review had a Youtube up about Betfair's Happy Hour Promotion.

I made a comment for the video saying; "Why are Betfair still rated A by SBR when they have stolen hundreds of thousands of dollars from players?"

Within 48 hours the video was torn down with the message; "This video has been removed due to legal reasons."
What's the bet it was becasue of my comment?

I contacted SBR via email about this asking the same question; "Why does Betfair still have an A rating?"
No reply.

Seems the only one willing to mete out justice is Casinomeister.

It's more likely that Betfair had it removed from YouTube by their lawyers contacting YouTube, and SBR having nothing to do with it.

The silence from SBR, along with the continued A rating, indicates that SBR don't give a rat's ass about this because it was a "casino issue", and they are rating the sportsbook.

Dumping the sportsbook would cost them affiliate revenue.

Betfair may also have leaned on SBR to ensure they don't put the video up again, either on YouTube or a different site.

It seems that Betfair are SERIOUSLY worried about this whole affair, and are trying to keep it buried, even though this hasn't quite worked.

One thing they will NOT be able to bury though is a court case going against them. A video report of a court case, sticking to the facts and the judgement, will be very hard to get removed provided the poster gets some balls, and argues that it is "fair comment".

If a player wins against betfair YouTube will be the least of their worries, they will have to try and shut the press up, and they DON'T give in so easily.

 

[Joaopc56]

I doubt it. Justin helped me a lot with this situation. Betfair stills with an A because of their sportsbook. Justin helped me filling a complain to LGA and other gaming authorities and he was impressed with all the situation.

Also to mention that I don´t doubt betfair is scared about this because of poor reputation but you shouldn´t also forget about their constant account lock after the HH promo. You can see a lot of complains about the casino sign up bonus, of people who made profit and got the account closed and deposit back. Everytime someone wins big they close the account. I hope people start complaining a lot about them. They must stop closing accounts.

 

[vinylweatherman]

I doubt it. Justin helped me a lot with this situation. Betfair stills with an A because of their sportsbook. Justin helped me filling a complain to LGA and other gaming authorities and he was impressed with all the situation.

Also to mention that I don´t doubt betfair is scared about this because of poor reputation but you shouldn´t also forget about their constant account lock after the HH promo. You can see a lot of complains about the casino sign up bonus, of people who made profit and got the account closed and deposit back. Everytime someone wins big they close the account. I hope people start complaining a lot about them. They must stop closing accounts.

They must feel they "got away with the big one", so this has given them confidence to behave like this, and expect to get away with it too.

Making a complaint to the LGA is one thing, getting the LGA to DO anything about it is another - and I bet this is what Betfair are relying on.

It seems they are calling the bluff of players who have merely threatened court action, and it will take an actual court summons to make them take a second look at their policy. Betfair were also threatening to take "legal measures" against players where they were NOT able to act fast enough to confiscate winnings, but they never did - those player who didn't scare easily got to keep the money. It is clear that Betfair FEAR an ACTUAL case going before the court, but they are probably very good at the game of "brinkmanship" ( or if you like "chicken"), and are determined NOT to be the first to "flinch" in a confrontation.

Given that the ASA have already ruled against the advertising for the HH promotion, a good approach would be to make complaints to the ASA about the advertising of the sign-up bonus, on the grounds that although it is a different promotion, they are committing the SAME offence in terms of it being "not administered fairly". This would anger the ASA, because it would make them look like fools because Betfair have "got one over" by simply doing the same, but calling the "product" by a different name.

OFCOM were made to look like fools after an investigation into so called "non-geographic" numbers and their very high charges. Shortly after this, the organisation was pronounced "not fit for purpose", and reorganised, and the businesses carried on ripping off consumers by exploiting the loopholes they had manipulated OFCOM into leaving unplugged.

NO government body is going to want to look "unfit for purpose" or "pointless", lest it gets done away with during the government cutbacks.

 

[uki]

Given that the ASA have already ruled against the advertising for the HH promotion, a good approach would be to make complaints to the ASA about the advertising of the sign-up bonus, on the grounds that although it is a different promotion, they are committing the SAME offence in terms of it being "not administered fairly". This would anger the ASA, because it would make them look like fools because Betfair have "got one over" by simply doing the same, but calling the "product" by a different name.

Hum, interesting point. I might well take you up on that suggestion. Since I was one of the complainants at the ASA I would be well placed to do this.

 

[uki]

Hum, interesting point. I might well take you up on that suggestion. Since I was one of the complainants at the ASA I would be well placed to do this.

Re-complained to the ASA and they were not interested in the least! Cant be bothered with them.

Anyone else making progress with a court case (I am) ?

PM me if you don't want to talk in the open.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Re-complained to the ASA and they were not interested in the least! Cant be bothered with them.

Anyone else making progress with a court case (I am) ?

PM me if you don't want to talk in the open.

This may be because they didn't have the powers to rule on internet advertisements when this happend.

A court case is far more likely to get their attention - and they could suffer considerable damage if it goes against them. If they let it get to court, they must be pretty confident of winning.

 

[-Wendy-]

Betfair middle management resign and shares slump:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[Rhyzz]

Like any PLC, no single person taking charge and people will get tired of the amount of time it takes to get anything done. Paddypower are in a similar situation from what I know, they have a manager for absolutely everything and everyone wants to do something new, but it never gets done because of resources.

 

[sparkz]

Been a 3 hour read of the whole thing :O.

Im curious as to know what people have done now?

Have a lot of people given up?

have court cases completed and a resolution found?

 

[Joaopc56]

I got news for you. Betfair sent me an e-mail saying they will send back my initial deposit I made on HH promo... stunning 300€. Better than nothing.

That´s the e-mail I got from them after around 10 or 20 mails I sent them last month asking about my deposit (at least... also explaining all the 32k situation of course but don´t think they care).

They will probably send 300€ in the next hours:

Dear Joao,

Thank you very much for contacting us again.

We kindly need you to send us your bank details in order to be able to send you back the funds via Bank Transfer. All the cards registered on your Betfair account have expired and for that reason we are not able to send back funds.


We thank you once again for your co-operation and await your reply.

Kind regards,

Verification Team

 

[vinylweatherman]

Nothing to do with the bonus fiasco either. It looks more and more like the company didn't have the funds to honour the promotion in any case, so had to find a way to wriggle out of their promises.

The promotion may even have been deliberately designed as "too good to be true" in order to create a significant boost in player deposits that would flatter the accounts. No mistake in design of the terms, but a complete failure to appreciate the potential for players to WIN a large amount from these inflated deposits.
The claim that SIX members of management didn't spot the potential for problems before signing this off never looked credible, thus NO mistake - the terms were as intended, but the failure was in not understanding how players could very easily win under these rules once lured in to making substantial deposits.

Things could get even worse for Betfair if a player succeeds in winning one of the court cases that seem to be in the pipeline, or the "city" gets wind of players challenging the confiscations in UK courts.

 

[Rick Deckard]

Is Betfair turning over a new leaf.

Press Release

- Start-
Thursday 2 June, 2011
BETFAIR MAKES CUSTOMER PROMISE

BETFAIR, the World's Biggest Betting Community, has today launched a Customer Commitment outlining the company's promise to deliver the best possible service for its customers.
The Commitment includes 14 customer promises across five key areas; protection for customers and their data, integrity in sport, customer service received by Betfair account holders, clear communication, and the reliability of Betfair’s products and services.
Each promise includes either a measurable element or a clearly defined deliverable so that success can be evaluated. The company's progress against each of these commitments will be published every three months, with the first update at the beginning of August.
A link to the new Commitment can be found within the footer of the Betfair homepage. It is also found here.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Betfair's Chief Commercial Officer Niall Wass said: "This Commitment is a direct response to customer feedback defining the areas of our business where they felt clarity and transparency were most required.
"This is an ongoing commitment from Betfair to listen to our customers and, ultimately, to strive to deliver the best experience in our industry."


- Ends -

 

[vinylweatherman]

Is Betfair turning over a new leaf.

Press Release

- Start-
Thursday 2 June, 2011
BETFAIR MAKES CUSTOMER PROMISE

BETFAIR, the World's Biggest Betting Community, has today launched a Customer Commitment outlining the company's promise to deliver the best possible service for its customers.
The Commitment includes 14 customer promises across five key areas; protection for customers and their data, integrity in sport, customer service received by Betfair account holders, clear communication, and the reliability of Betfair’s products and services.
Each promise includes either a measurable element or a clearly defined deliverable so that success can be evaluated. The company's progress against each of these commitments will be published every three months, with the first update at the beginning of August.
A link to the new Commitment can be found within the footer of the Betfair homepage. It is also found here.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Betfair's Chief Commercial Officer Niall Wass said: "This Commitment is a direct response to customer feedback defining the areas of our business where they felt clarity and transparency were most required.
"This is an ongoing commitment from Betfair to listen to our customers and, ultimately, to strive to deliver the best experience in our industry."


- Ends -

More like they want to bury the past.

This will only be worthwhile if they are prepared to be judged for previous dealings against this new customer promise.

They should publish their PAST performance against this new charter, and admit how badly they did in the past.

This is a common company trick, and is aimed at drawing in NEW customers with a "new leaf" approach, but as for old customers who got shafted, it will be a case of "f*** 'em, they no longer matter".

The main audience for this press release is the city investors, NOT the customers. They are trying to stem the slide in the share price, as it makes then vulnerable to a hostile takeover from another betting firm with a bit of cash to spare, and a desire to expand.

 

[Joaopc56]

Received my deposit back yesterday... after 8 months. No sign of the 32k though. No chance.

Cheers

 

[jetset]

This issue is deeply interesting for me, and I have been monitoring reports to see where it is going in a litigation sense. However, so far I have seen nothing to indicate that legal action is in progress, creating the perception that perhaps nothing is being done about this matter and Betfair will walk away from it unscathed.

This is strange imo; I would have expected at the very least that the banking authorities in Joaopc56's case would have been more cooperative in insisting on explanations for the unapproved withdrawal of such a large sum of money from his personal bank account.

 

[Joaopc56]

Last week I received a letter from "Banco de Portugal" wich regulates bank activity, saying that my bank had no action and no responsability on the funds taken by betfair. So I suppose 2 things:

1- Betfair just charged it back and legally they can (?)
2- There´s something strange behind this... I mean really strange (€)

 

[Mousey]

This issue is deeply interesting for me, and I have been monitoring reports to see where it is going in a litigation sense. However, so far I have seen nothing to indicate that legal action is in progress, creating the perception that perhaps nothing is being done about this matter and Betfair will walk away from it unscathed.

This is strange imo; I would have expected at the very least that the banking authorities in Joaopc56's case would have been more cooperative in insisting on explanations for the unapproved withdrawal of such a large sum of money from his personal bank account.

I find this Betfair fiasco rather 'embarrassing' for the online gambling community. And the fact that no authority or regulator or licensing agency has taken Betfair to task for screwing players over is nothing less than an outrage.