Betfair Bonus Fiasco

[SlotsLover]

I disagree, giving money back is something that a Casino will never do, regardless of what happens on another persons account and rightly so.

Their logic will be that you lost and therefore didn't profit from breaking their terms. Those that won, in their eyes did break the terms and so they have reclaimed the money.

I agree with not having to pay back losing players, but I don't agree with not paying winning players when a mistake is made.

I was trying to come up with generous terms for the casino. If you don't pay the winners their full due, but don't refund the losers, that is worst of all because then players were playing "so they can only lose."

 

[vinylweatherman]

No doubt more to do with their latest Half Yearly Report than this fiasco but interesting to note that the Betfair share price absolutely tanked today.

Down over 15% on the day to less than £10. This is after having initially come to the market a few weeks ago at an opening £15.

That's some loss against a buoyant market!

This report will NOT have included anything to do with this fiasco, but the annual report WILL include this, and they CANNOT lie to the city in order to cover up any impact it has had.

One impact is the LOSS of "active customers", so it will look like they gained 30%, then LOST customers. This will be taken as a sign of decline, and will NOT be at all helpful to their share price.

Worse could come if players start taking them to court and WINNING, since they would have to make provisions in the full year financial report for what would be unknown liabilities, as well as let investors know that they have court judgements against them.

I can't see Betfair letting any of this get in front of a judge, they WILL have a very strong incentive to settle this out of court, but they will ONLY do so when they have their "backs to the wall", so this would need players to follow through by booking a court to hear the case, getting the court to agree it CAN hear the case, and Betfair will quickly seek an out of court settlement, probably one with a confidentiality clause.

 

[jetset]

The group had to carry a GBP14.7 million expense on its recent IPO, but such a dip in share price is certainly a cause for concern for the Board.

Profit after tax was down 12.7 percent to GBP 6.8 million as a result. Active customers went up 31.1 percent to 654,000, according to the report, with the company in a healthy condition regarding available cash (around GBP 178 million) and its certification that it carries no debt burden.

 

[Rhyzz]

Always the problem when a company goes public - massive hits and mistakes get picked up on ten fold. If they were private, no doubt the top boy would recognise the mistake, take the hit of a few hundred K and move on.

Lesson to be learned perhaps? Avoid public companies and those with shareholders to please? Who knows. I'll be sticking to the privately funded regardless, they tend to be able to flex their muscle more where offers are concered...

 

[Tengil]

Most likely the major factor is the disappointment over the low revenue growth in Q2.

 

[threescatters]

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

 

[threescatters]

"More than £200million was wiped off the betting exchange's value yesterday - with its shares hitting 990p, down 191p
"

 

[Przecinek]

I'm surprised no one has tried filing a complaint through Sportsbook Review yet, as they are an A+ rated and recommended sportsbook (ok so they are actually a betting exchange, whatever) as well as casino. They may not take being rogued here as seriously as they should, but it would be a very big deal if they got a deluge of complaints through SBR, didn't resolve it and lost their A listed status, and there's a zero percent chance SBR will accept a "spirit of the bonus" abuse claim, they are extremely hard line and vigilant when it comes to shennanigans like this.

Justin7 from SBR actually made a video some time ago, warning players about recent betfair moves. So it's the same over there.

 

[skiny]

Market Data

Betfair Group (BET)Sector: Tourism and Leisure
Price: 1,045.00p Change: 55.00p (5.56%) Market cap: £1,122.98m (CLOSED)

 

[jetset]

Good analytical article in the Guardian on Betfair's dive south, too.

 

[KasinoKing]

I disagree, giving money back is something that a Casino will never do, regardless of what happens on another persons account and rightly so.

Their logic will be that you lost and therefore didn't profit from breaking their terms. Those that won, in their eyes did break the terms and so they have reclaimed the money.

Huh?
Well unless I've been reading this whole thing totally wrong - I didn't think ANY players had broken ANY terms.

As I understand it, the casino offered repeat bonuses (which were too generous by mistake) and lots of players profited while keeping strictly within the terms of the promo's.

If I am wrong - please point me to the terms they broke.
Thanks.
KK

 

[maxd]

Good analytical article in the Guardian on Betfair's dive south, too.

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

Simon Goodley, guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 14 December 2010 19.44 GMT

Betfair's shares plunge to almost 25% less than float price as online betting exchange's maiden results disappoint.

Betfair, the recently floated online betting exchange, saw its shares slump by 16% today after lacklustre figures spooked investors who had bought into the company's bullish growth story.

Shares in the gambling group closed down 191p at 990p, meaning investors have lost almost a quarter of their stakes since the company was floated by investment banks Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley for £13.00 in October.

Brokers at Liberum Capital immediately advised investors to dump Betfair shares. Analyst Richard Taylor wrote: "The company has generated revenue growth of just 1.6% in the second quarter. This reflects weakness in poker and horse racing, with the higher value customers reducing spend per head … The company has not disclosed growth figures for the third quarter to date, which may invite suspicion given we are now halfway through the quarter." (

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

)

See also:

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

Nils Pratley, guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 14 December 2010 20.30 GMT

It turns out that the really duff float of the year from Goldman Sachs wasn't Ocado (shares down 11%) but Betfair, which stands 24% behind the starting line after today's weak first-half update. In terms of trading results, Ocado has at least produced what was expected of it –the scepticism relates instead to the valuation of a loss-making business. By contrast, investors in Betfair have a disappointing number to point at – growth of just 1.6% in the core betting exchange in the second-quarter of the financial year.

Some high-rolling poker players have disappeared; horse-racing is declining in popularity; and gamblers are risking less when budgets are tight. These are minor complaints: it's just that there is a lot of them.

The risks were covered in the prospectus, of course, but suddenly Betfair doesn't look like the reliable, all-conquering powerhouse its fans thought it was. It looks vulnerable to the ebbs and flows that affect all gambling stocks. And it looks as if the shares, £13 at flotation, were priced for perfection. ([URL="http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/dec/14/goldmansachs-banking?INTCMP=SRCH]more[/URL])

 

[Rhyzz]

Huh?
Well unless I've been reading this whole thing totally wrong - I didn't think ANY players had broken ANY terms.

As I understand it, the casino offered repeat bonuses (which were too generous by mistake) and lots of players profited while keeping strictly within the terms of the promo's.

If I am wrong - please point me to the terms they broke.
Thanks.
KK

That was just the point I was making. They see players as breaking terms. From what we know, nobody broke any terms, other than this Spirit of the bonus nonsense

 

[RedAndi]

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

Simon Goodley, guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 14 December 2010 19.44 GMT

Betfair's shares plunge to almost 25% less than float price as online betting exchange's maiden results disappoint.

Betfair, the recently floated online betting exchange, saw its shares slump by 16% today after lacklustre figures spooked investors who had bought into the company's bullish growth story.

Shares in the gambling group closed down 191p at 990p, meaning investors have lost almost a quarter of their stakes since the company was floated by investment banks Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley for £13.00 in October.

Brokers at Liberum Capital immediately advised investors to dump Betfair shares. Analyst Richard Taylor wrote: "The company has generated revenue growth of just 1.6% in the second quarter. This reflects weakness in poker and horse racing, with the higher value customers reducing spend per head … The company has not disclosed growth figures for the third quarter to date, which may invite suspicion given we are now halfway through the quarter." (

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

)

See also:

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

Nils Pratley, guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 14 December 2010 20.30 GMT

It turns out that the really duff float of the year from Goldman Sachs wasn't Ocado (shares down 11%) but Betfair, which stands 24% behind the starting line after today's weak first-half update. In terms of trading results, Ocado has at least produced what was expected of it –the scepticism relates instead to the valuation of a loss-making business. By contrast, investors in Betfair have a disappointing number to point at – growth of just 1.6% in the core betting exchange in the second-quarter of the financial year.

Some high-rolling poker players have disappeared; horse-racing is declining in popularity; and gamblers are risking less when budgets are tight. These are minor complaints: it's just that there is a lot of them.

The risks were covered in the prospectus, of course, but suddenly Betfair doesn't look like the reliable, all-conquering powerhouse its fans thought it was. It looks vulnerable to the ebbs and flows that affect all gambling stocks. And it looks as if the shares, £13 at flotation, were priced for perfection. ([URL="http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/dec/14/goldmansachs-banking?INTCMP=SRCH]more[/URL])

I know it's financial news not "general" news, but still I find it odd that there is no mention of the bonus fiasco and the uproar it is causing.

 

[ryanbear]

hey guys

can anyone elaborate on this that vinyl posted

""Any player with a negative balance should ignore requests to give money back, and should tell Betfair to take them to court (they won't - they will ban the player for life, but only take "unofficial" action to recover the money, such as writing or phoning - if they overstep the mark they could be up on CRIMINAL charges). ""

what can betfair do with negative balances? will they never take you to court?

 

[hugarse]

Ryan, I can only speak for the UK (although this may well be the same elsewhere) but Betfair could only attempt to recover the funds by going to a civil court, and proving to the court's satisfaction that you somehow owe them that money. In this instance, they would have to convince a court that you had acted dishonestly in some way.
Simply breaking a wooly T+C, or even worse acting outside "the spirit of the promo" would have no weight in any court in the UK.
In short, they have absolutely no way of recovering this money in the vast majority of cases. Unless you are a gnomer and they can prove it, keep the money.

 

[Rhyzz]

Ryan, I can only speak for the UK (although this may well be the same elsewhere) but Betfair could only attempt to recover the funds by going to a civil court, and proving to the court's satisfaction that you somehow owe them that money. In this instance, they would have to convince a court that you had acted dishonestly in some way.
Simply breaking a wooly T+C, or even worse acting outside "the spirit of the promo" would have no weight in any court in the UK.
In short, they have absolutely no way of recovering this money in the vast majority of cases. Unless you are a gnomer and they can prove it, keep the money.

Not sure how they would treat it actually. Gambling debts are enforcable contrary to popular belief, so if your balance is negative for whatever reason it is surely classed as a debt? It'd be a funny one that's for sure!

Either way i'd ignore any request they send

 

[hugarse]

Yep, they are enforcable, but through a court. Betfair can't just say "you owe us £xxx" and expect it back, they would have to convince a court that it was indeed a lawful debt, i.e that you did lawfully owe it to them.
Refusing to honour a badly set out promotion and then trying to desperately grab back their cash does not make a lawful debt, and there is no way a court in the UK would find in favour of Betfair if they tried to take proceedings against people under these circumstances.
As I said before, gnoming would be one set of circs where they could, but for the vast majority that is not applicable.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Not sure how they would treat it actually. Gambling debts are enforcable contrary to popular belief, so if your balance is negative for whatever reason it is surely classed as a debt? It'd be a funny one that's for sure!

Either way i'd ignore any request they send

Not something casinos want you to know

However, the debt would have to be "proved" in court.

The law is aimed at customers who are granted credit, place wagers, and settle their accounts at the end of a set period, cashing out if they win, but paying the bill if they lose.

The Betfair cock-up is something different, the wagering record will show that the players WON, and then cashed out. Betfair's argument is based that these wagers are void due to irregularities, or breaches of the terms. The court will say "show me", and all Betfair can do is provide a betting record, and the terms and conditions they argue were violated.

Betfair's claim will then be decided under UK law, including laws based on protecting "consumers" from "unfair contracts". They would have a poor chance of arguing that a violation of a vague concept such as "the spirit of" constitutes a "clear breach of the terms" by a consumer of a contract which is DICTATED by the business on a "take it or leave it" basis. It is because consumer contracts are not "proper" negotiated agreements, but dictated by the business, and to suit the business, that laws have been introduced to allow courts to strike out "unfair" terms, even where they have been clearly broken by the customer.

PLAYERS can take BETFAIR to court, proving that they played FULLY WITHIN the terms, and that Betfair CANNOT arbitrarily void their wagers. Since gambling debts ARE now enforceable, the courts will hear such cases, and Betfair will have to defend them, or have a default judgement made against them for not turning up. Players in the EU should also be able to have the case decided by the courts in their home country, rather than the EU country that is convenient for the operator. Since Betfair itself is a UK company, any judgement against them can be ENFORCED in the UK by serving it on the UK holding company, rather than the casino subsidiary. Betfair are the legal owners of the casino operating company, and as such are responsible to the extent of the net asset value of the casino subsidiary. IF the company fails to pay, and there are enough players with successful judgments in their favour, they can get together to seek an order to wind up the casino subsidiary in order to recover their monies.

 

[sambaEah]

Has anyone actually started a claim against Betfair then? Small claims or otherwise?

I'm going to submit a MCOL (Money Claim Online) next week for the amount they took from me.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Has anyone actually started a claim against Betfair then? Small claims or otherwise?

I'm going to submit a MCOL (Money Claim Online) next week for the amount they took from me.

Let us know how this works out, it will help others in the same situation. It may even make Betfair seek a resolution of this issue.

Betfair may be working on the theory that players who say "see you in court" are bluffing in order to make them back down.

 

[uki]

Yes, I am going to take the MCOL route. Since BF obviously read this forum I will not post any details of my case.

 

[petro]

Imagine if they launched a PaB over this?
Amount oweing: 2-3 million dollars.
I can't think of a bigger robbery than this in the history of online gaming.

 

[GOCC]

Has anyone actually started a claim against Betfair then? Small claims or otherwise?

I'm going to submit a MCOL (Money Claim Online) next week for the amount they took from me.

If you need any help, I will happily assist you.

 

[heyheyjay]

I did everything I could to solve this situation. Even if I never get my money back at least I want to hurt betfair in some way even if it´s only in Portugal. Next step is inform all media I can here in Portugal about this. I won´t give up from this and if I have to take this to court I will pay a lawyer no problem.

However every company I contaced here in Portugal said the problem is between me and my bank, not between me and betfair. Betfair were the thieves, bank allowed the thief to take 32k from my bank account. 3-4 working days left to have a reply from my bank I will keep you informed.

So what was the reply from the bank dude?

 

[Joaopc56]

They replied yesterday. The letter says they didn´t have any action/intervention in the transaction and that I must talk with betfair (useless).

I´m going to the court here in Portugal, against my bank.

 

[sambaEah]

Reports that Betfair have no made some balances that were negative back to £0.

Must have realised they don't have a leg to stand on in recovering!

 

[uki]

Reports that Betfair have no made some balances that were negative back to £0.

Must have realised they don't have a leg to stand on in recovering!

Or more like realising what they did was illegal by 1) making people have credit accounts when they do not have a licence to do credit, 2) false accounting under stock market rules as the negative balances effectively reduce their liabilities.

 

[vinylweatherman]

They replied yesterday. The letter says they didn´t have any action/intervention in the transaction and that I must talk with betfair (useless).

I´m going to the court here in Portugal, against my bank.

That's bollocks - THEY let it leave your account, so they are still liable by INaction in preventing such a huge sum from leaving.

They may well be trying to pass the buck, rather than refund it themselves.

What do banking regulations say about this? Since you didn't AUTHORISE Betfair to make this debit, surely this is FRAUD of some sort, or are banks in the habit of allowing debits through without questioning whether the account holder has given authority.

You will have to show the bank was negligent in allowing this transaction through without ensuring it was legitimate.

Here in the UK, if this had been done using a variable direct debit, we could ask for the money back from the bank by showing that this debit was not notified in advance, or was otherwise taken without permission. Banks don't always like having to do this, and will always tell the customer to have a go chasing the company. Companies also know about the scheme, and will often give the money back, rather than sour relationships with the banks.

I had this done to me by a company who took money a month before they were supposed to under the agreement. I used the "direct debit guarantee" scheme as leverage to get it back, and back it came

You might find it worth getting legal advice, so that you present your case properly, and also to see whether you are better off hauling your bank, or Betfair, before the court.

Remember, Betfair is an EU based company, even the CASINO, so they will not be able to dodge the courts so easily as a group based outside the EU could.

The publicity surrounding such a case might be more damaging to them that parting with €32,000 to keep this away from the courts.

You will probably have to go ahead, else they may think that you are bluffing. Betfair are not going to start paying one or two players unless they are really backed into a corner, because they know this will mean other players will be inspired to chase their money.

Rumours that they are restoring negative balances to zero perhaps suggest Betfair are backing off, as I said they would, rather than go after players to recover negative balances.

I am not sure this necessarily created a regulatory issue around "credit accounts", but maybe they didn't want this issue making it into the annual report's figures, so they "made it go away" rather than have to produce a section regarding money owed by players.

 

[Jasminebed]

Legal proceedings vary greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Here in Canada, a suit would be brought against both parties... Probably against the bank primarily, and in the alternative Betfair. The bank would probably join into the action against Betfair.

While not always the cheapest, a large firm usually has foreign contacts since this may span more than one jurisdiction.

Thanks for keeping us up to date.

 

[jetset]

They replied yesterday. The letter says they didn´t have any action/intervention in the transaction and that I must talk with betfair (useless).

I´m going to the court here in Portugal, against my bank.

That sounds to me like a management committee "what's our first position?" decision so typical of corporate manouevring ie 'let's try to get away with it as a first move, we can always reassess and reposition later.'

I think when your bank starts feeling a little legal heat it will do just that, because as VWM says above, there is no way the bank can justify allowing Betfair to waltz into your account and help themselves.

Good luck, and keep us advised!

 

[Joaopc56]

That´s what I will try to prove, that my bank was responsible for letting betfair go into my account and take 32k. Everyone I talk about this (since other bank officers, customer protection services, etc) say that the bank was responsible. A customer protection service here in Portugal named "DECO" will "borrow" me a lawyer to go on court against my bank. This will take long time but I won´t give up.

 

[jetset]

Good for you

Really determined consumers can make a difference when they show the corporates that they are serious about taking legal action - it tends to get the attention of the top brass and often leads to serious reconsideration and settlement.

 

[Perc]

Good for you

Really determined consumers can make a difference when they show the corporates that they are serious about taking legal action - it tends to get the attention of the top brass and often leads to serious reconsideration and settlement.

I agree, good for you!

I really hope it works out for you and that your case puts enough pressure on Betfair to reconsider their position. If they get away with this, it would be pretty scary to know that a casino can just take money out of your bank account whenever they want and there's nothing you can do about it.

 

[vinylweatherman]

That´s what I will try to prove, that my bank was responsible for letting betfair go into my account and take 32k. Everyone I talk about this (since other bank officers, customer protection services, etc) say that the bank was responsible. A customer protection service here in Portugal named "DECO" will "borrow" me a lawyer to go on court against my bank. This will take long time but I won´t give up.

Unfortunately, such matters can take months, if not years, but keep at it. You have NOTHING more to lose, but €32K to gain. A "borrowed" lawyer is a good move, as pursuing the case through your DECO will show the bank that you are NOT going to be put off by the costs. If the bank think they are at risk of losing, they may well settle out of court to avoid the bad publicity. Just imagine the story if they lose in court, they will be named in the press as the bank that lets a foreign company just waltz in and take 32K from a customer's account without thinking it is perhaps worthy of further checking with the customer as to whether this had been authorised.

Contrast this with my experience with UK banks. I found one bank would "refer" up to 50% of my casino credit card deposits to me by phoning me to double check that I had authorised them. This was for sums in the £hundreds. Another bank blocks transactions above a couple of hundred, but lets smaller ones through.
Your bank seems to have considered a €32K "deposit" to Betfair as "normal". If you can show that this is very "abnormal" from the way you normally use your account to deposit at casinos, you have a case that your bank should have picked up on this transaction, and held it pending confirmation from yourself that it should be allowed through.

The defence might be that this was a "correction of a banking error", but this was NOT the case, since you WON the funds, and Betfair later disputed this and resolved it by taking them back. This is NOT how a dispute should be resolved. Betfair should have taken legal action against you, and WON - getting a settlement that involved you giving the funds back. Only with a court victory would Betfair be right in recovering the funds by any means they could.

 

[jetset]

From the Casino Scam Report site, which lists this as one of the blunders of the year:

Betfair Casino Giveth & Taketh Away! – Betfair Casino had a fantastic promotion in 2010 called their “Happy Hour”. This was an unlimited bonus event where players were only required to roll their bonus over 10 times before being allowed to cash out, which in online gambling is Fantastic! So of course, thousands of players took them up on their offer.

Well once management at the casino saw how many players were taking them up on this “Happy Hour” bonus they realized the promotion was “too” generous and they stood to lose too much money.

So, what they did next was a huge blunder! A great number of players ended up not receiving their winnings of this bonus and some were actually told to return their winnings! LOL, can you believe that?

There were threats that if they didn’t return the winnings there (sic) accounts would be put in the negative until all monies were paid back.

 

[jetset]

Betfair’s shares yesterday (Jan. 5) reached their lowest price since the company floated in October of last year, closing the day down 34p at 937½ pence - a more than 27 percent drop in the float price.

During the day's trading the price hit a low 916½ pence, a 5.66 per cent drop from the start of the day.

 

[RedAndi]

Betfair’s shares yesterday (Jan. 5) reached their lowest price since the company floated in October of last year, closing the day down 34p at 937½ pence - a more than 27 percent drop in the float price.

During the day's trading the price hit a low 916½ pence, a 5.66 per cent drop from the start of the day.

Anyone think Betfair will come out of this?
Or maybe I should ask if they do come out of it will they still be "Betfair", or will they just rebrand and move on?

 

[heador112]

Sooner or later the dust will settle .

I wonder if they have fired the persons who made this bonus

 

[vinylweatherman]

Anyone think Betfair will come out of this?
Or maybe I should ask if they do come out of it will they still be "Betfair", or will they just rebrand and move on?

They will do their best to bury this. Whilst PLAYERS know all about this, I bet INVESTORS don't, and so long as Betfair can keep this out of the mainstream media, they will probably manage to bury this by next year.

The shares are suffering because of general poor performance, and THIS episode will only surface in the full year report, which is not likely to see the light of day till the Spring.

It might explain why they are trying to claw back winnings already paid, as well as the mass confiscation of winnings they managed to block in time. This will minimise the overall hit to the profit/loss figures, especially if they can make the losses up from other activities.


I bet what they fear the most is the issue spilling over into the mainstream media, including the financial papers.

One thing that will see to it that this DOES happen would be a series of court cases, especially if Betfair started LOSING them.

This is why I have advised players who have received "legal threats" to recover winnings already paid out to "ignore it - ain't never gonna happen".

Equally, Betfair are betting that players who had their winnings confiscated will not take this to the courts.

This might explain why there are reports of Betfair resetting negative balances back to zero when players have ignored the requests and threats, and have refused to give back any winnings.

 

[Rhyzz]

Sooner or later the dust will settle .

I wonder if they have fired the persons who made this bonus

I'd say they should have, although a company the size of Betfair I would have thought they have departments cooking up these offers, with one person signing them off. Said person is normally high up and this may not be seen as a big enough cock up to sack someone so high up.

End of the day it depends on how much it has cost them. They can't measure reputation really so sacking someone for bringing the company into disrepute would be a difficult angle

 

[vinylweatherman]

I'd say they should have, although a company the size of Betfair I would have thought they have departments cooking up these offers, with one person signing them off. Said person is normally high up and this may not be seen as a big enough cock up to sack someone so high up.

End of the day it depends on how much it has cost them. They can't measure reputation really so sacking someone for bringing the company into disrepute would be a difficult angle

This CAN be measured, and is known in city circles as "goodwill". It is a valuation of the brand and reputation of a company, rather than it's actual trading performance.

When a company is taken over, a calculation of "goodwill" can set a premium price on the shares. A company with a reputation in tatters does not attract such a premium, and often falls prey to "asset strippers" who cut out the bad bits, and sell off the good bits at an overall profit.

The concept of "goodwill" can also influence the share price, since investors are prepared to pay more to invest in a well known, and well liked, brand even if the actual performance is mediocre (they are looking for future prospects for a recovery in performance).

Betfair have released poor results, and this has driven down the share price since flotation. With little history as a traded company, much still rests on the perception of the brand as "well respected". If this fiasco became a "big deal", and looked like it was going to make existing players less trusting, and deter new players from choosing Betfair, analysts will mark down their estimates for future performance, and this will cause a further fall in the share price.
This may reach a point where another gambling company decides to try a hostile takeover whilst Betfair is on it's knees, in the hope of turning things around at a healthy profit for themselves.

Ladbrokes have ALREADY snapped up 888.com, and no doubt other companies are now looking to snap up other brands in order to match the growth spurt in Ladbrokes' market share. Betfair would be a nice target if it could be had on the cheap.

 

[petro]

Hey, I've been lurking this thread for ages.
Any chance in hell that Betfair may be found innocent?
I think one thing they have going for their case is that they made a mistake.
I'm pretty sure we can all agree on that. Regardless.

 

[jetset]

Mistakes are regrettable but forgivable...if they are subseqently handled in a fair and sensible manner.

Something singularly lacking in the current issue, it would appear.

 

[petro]

Did anyone who made a deposit and took the bonus during the Happy Hour and lost recieve their money back?
Anyone got confirmation?

 

[vinylweatherman]

Hey, I've been lurking this thread for ages.
Any chance in hell that Betfair may be found innocent?
I think one thing they have going for their case is that they made a mistake.
I'm pretty sure we can all agree on that. Regardless.

If you find a TV in a shop for £10, and take it to the till, and at that point they say "it's a mistake", they DON'T have to sell you that TV for £10. They can tell you the correct price, and ask you whether you still want it.

On the other hand, if it is rung through at the till, you pay your £10, get a receipt, and leave. Well, when the shop realises, TOUGH, they CANNOT go to your house and confiscate the TV on the grounds of it being "a mistake".

In the Betfair case, had Betfair declined claims for the bonus because it was a mistake, and told players what the CORRECT rules were, and would they still want to claim, fine - they can do this.

However, players claimed (bought the product), played and withdrew (left the shop). Betfair have already bound themselves by the contract, just as the customer has. Betfair are now doing the equivalent of going round your house and taking the TV back. In one case, they have resoorted to "burglary" to retrieve the "telly" by breaking into a Portuguese players' bank account and helping themselves.

The question is all about when the contract was agreed between BOTH parties. This is at the point of sale, and on the internet the ticking of any "I agree" box is the point at which the contract becomes binding. This is EXACTLY how casinos say it works when registering at the site, so by their own admission THIS is the point at which a contract between them and a player becomes binding.

In order to confiscate winnings, they have to show a breach of the terms. The ONLY thing these terms allow them to do is to suspend the offer at any time, and without notice. There is NO provision for them rewinding the clock and voiding play retrospectively in order to retrospectively cancel the entire offer.

Betfair have not just confiscated winnings, they have raided eWallet and bank accounts to recover winnings already paid, and threatened players where they were unable to take the money back from the ewallets and banks.

They then made things worse by "going to ground" and refusing to discuss the issue, or allow any appeals through the normal arbitration channels that they were happy to use in the past.

They are hoping they are heavy enough to sit on this issue until it suffocates to death, but they may find the issue "makes a break for it", and asks for asylum in the main stream media, or the courts.

 

[petro]

If you find a TV in a shop for £10, and take it to the till, and at that point they say "it's a mistake", they DON'T have to sell you that TV for £10. They can tell you the correct price, and ask you whether you still want it.

While I understand what you are trying to express here.
You are comparing a 7 or 8 figure sum to a £10 TV.
A £10 TV is so small in comparison to what Betfair lost that it cannot be used as a metaphor to base any solid argument on.

You need to come up with something better than that.

 

[vinylweatherman]

While I understand what you are trying to express here.
You are comparing a 7 or 8 figure sum to a £10 TV.
A £10 TV is so small in comparison to what Betfair lost that it cannot be used as a metaphor to base any solid argument on.

You need to come up with something better than that.

It is NOT the AMOUNT that matters in law, it is the PRINCIPLE. Whether you steal a penny, or a million pounds, you are STILL a thief as far as the law is concerned.

In Civil law, a contract is a contract, whether it is the purchase of a tube of toothpaste, or a luxury yacht.

All that differs is the length a "loser" in what they feel is a flawed transaction is prepared to go to.

There HAVE been cases where shops have proscecuted shoplifters for very minor thefts, such as a packet of polos. The cases were NOT thrown out of court because the amounts were so small, they went ahead because a theft is a theft, whatever the value stolen.

Most shops CHOOSE to deal with minor shoplifters by NOT pressing charges, even though they have every right. They don't want to spend the effort needed, if they can deal with the matter by getting a police caution issued, and then banning the shoplifter from the store.

Betfair are making such an effort because the amount IS worth pursuing, even to the point of destroying their reputation, and even finding themselves in court. For some players also, the amount IS worth pursuing, and this is where Betfair may face it's biggest challenge - who will back down first?

If Betfair try to say the terms they hastily added after the fact were ALWAYS the terms for this promo, they could face CRIMINAL charges of PERJURY (for which Geoffrey Archer got 2 years when lying to the court whilst claiming damages from a newspaper), or be separately proscecuted for fraud (unlikely, given it would have to be the LGA that initiated this).

 

[heador112]

I miss a official statement from Betfair here in this thread .

 

[RedAndi]

If you find a TV in a shop for £10, and take it to the till, and at that point they say "it's a mistake", they DON'T have to sell you that TV for £10. They can tell you the correct price, and ask you whether you still want it.

On the other hand, if it is rung through at the till, you pay your £10, get a receipt, and leave. Well, when the shop realises, TOUGH, they CANNOT go to your house and confiscate the TV on the grounds of it being "a mistake".

On the other hand...
In the last few months I have gotten things marked incorrectly for the price they were marked.
The first time I asked a manager who said well it's our mistake so you can purchase it for the price marked.
The second time a sale price was WAY off and the person at the register again said "we mismarked it, so we will honor the price shown".
The third time the lady at the register claimed the manager marked it wrong, and was not going to sell the items for the incorrect price. I said "You had them marked at that price that is the price I will pay or not make the purchase". Again I got the items for the incorrectly marked low price.

Granted these are all piddly items bought for less than 20 dollars, but the point is the stores made the mistakes and the stores honored the advertising.
In the USA if something is advertised it doesn't matter who F'd up, most places are going to honor their word (at least in my experience).