Actually, the statements were from a former CS representative. Officially Bet365 have been fairly quiet about it, but their CEO John Coates has stated that the claims by the former CS-rep are false. He is quoted as saying that "gambling is safe and harmless"
. But he does confirm that they give big bonuses to high rollers.
The media attention around this case has been huge here in Norway, because the gambler's father is a publicly known bishop. The bishop and his wife have been declared bankrupt by the courts as a result of their son's gambling.
Cliffs notes:
-Bishop and wife are declared bankrupt after amassing millions in debts from banks, friends and acquaintances. The money has been lent on to their son, Bjarte Baasland, who claimed to need the money for his Czech IT company. He also claimed, and provided (fake) evidence, that a major IT-company was interested in buying him out, and thus would be able to pay it back shortly.
-Baasland (the son) admits that there is no IT company. He claims to have lost everything, approximately $10-12 million, gambling online. All the money is borrowed from his parents and a wealthy friend of the family.
-The majority of the $10-12 million is lost betting on sports over a period of 3 years. The losses are divided about 50/50 between bet365 and Centrebet. (The former bet365 employee claims that he also gambled heavily on casino games).
-Baasland is charged with fraud and interrogated by police
-Former bet365 CS-rep tells major newspaper all about how they hustled Baasland into losing millions.
-Politicians and newpaper editors denounce the online gambling business, describe it as "rotten to the core", "a bunch crooks devoid of ethics or morals", "ruthlessly preying on compulsive gamblers" etc etc. Many call for government action like IP-bans.
Here's an article in English:
Old / Expired Link
Ah, I understand, Mr Baasland used OTHER PEOPLE'S money. This is in breach of the terms and conditions of the online casinos. Well, from experience, what tends to happen is that when the casino finds out, they have their accounts LOCKED and WINNINGS CONFISCATED, and their DEPOSITS RETURNED.
Well, Mr Baasland LOST, but it makes no difference, the SAME rules were broken (and he USED BONUSES), so surely the SAME should apply - if not, WHY not
As for the more general case, many of us KNOW that the casinos treat WINNERS as "something the cat dragged in", and LOSERS as "royalty". Bonuses and "comps" have NOTHING TO DO with a player's "status" as defined by the various VIP clubs operated, it is down to the player's LOSSES.
Many REPUTABLE casinos operate this way.
From my OWN EXPERIENCE, I have NOT gained the advertised priviliges of my VIP club standing BECAUSE I have either WON, or not lost enough. In many cases, it takes quite an effort to drag out the reasons from the casino, and many have lied to me about "technical difficulties" being responsible.
Roxy Palace did this, they LIED to me that they were either experiencing "technical difficulties" with my Email address (bollox!) when I didn't receive my newsletters. They even tried telling me they hadn't even RUN a newsletter promotional that week, despite the fact that it was EASY to spot the lie simply by checking with the lobby!
It was ONLY after I went on a "rant" here about this string of "bad service" that their rep revealed that despite me being GOLD status, I had "won too much" and had been frozen out from the newsletter promotions.
It took less effort to get Club USA to admit that I had been "bonus banned" after a winning spree on stud poker (4 OK and DEALER QUALIFIED
).
I am bonus banned at Spin Palace (remember Munchkins
), but NOT at Ruby Fortune, where I have lost half of it back.
Jackpot Factory was different, I won big early, but didn't get a bonus ban, and the house edge kicked in and they got it all back & some more over the folowing years.
Grand Prive bonus banned me, but I LOST 3.6K in a MERE 3 MONTHS!!!!!
I have been BANNED from some UK gambling arcades for being "too good" at playing the Fruit Machines, quite aggressively so at a couple.
I also know about "being taken out back" in some of the seedier places, and avoid places that seem to be inclined that way.
NONE of these establishments will admit to such behaviour in public, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
Because much of this happens "in secret", it is largely untouched by the regulatory bodies, some of whom themselves seem a little "corrupt" when it comes to protecting the PLAYER, rather than the BUSINESS, and regulatory bodies are SUPPOSED to be there to prevent "player abuse", not to help the business make more than it is entitled to make.
There is often no fixed term contract, which is how terms can be changed on the fly, such as reducing betting limits. So long as the changes are not tretrospective, the only recourse the player has is to take their business elsewhere. Casinos only get into trouble when they seek to void bets for "playing style" rather than proper breaches of contract, and apply this retrospectively after the bets have been taken and settled, rather than blocking the making of such bets.
Anti-Discrimination legislation DOES limit the grounds for refusing service to a particular player, however the categories are defined, and prohibit such grounds as Race, Gender, Religion, Sexual orientation, and more recently Disability and Age (except for minors under 18/21). It is not specifically illegal to discriminate on grounds of Intelligence, as there seemed no need as discrimination was traditionally against the disadvantaged.
There is nothing to stop a case from being brought for ANY discrimination, as case law often forms part of the legislature here in the UK, and it would take only ONE court ruling AGAINST a casino or bookies that discriminated against someone who was "too clever" to enshrine "intelligence" as a "disability" covered by the anti-discrimination laws. This would then apply throughout the EU, INCLUDING those licensing juristictions within the EU that casinos seek to use.
Interestingly, many of the juristictions seen as the most reputable are NOT properly covered, as they are NOT members of the EU as is Britain, but members of a looser network of trading partner states. This includes the IOM, Channel Islands, and Gibraltar, which are "protectorates" of the UK, but not actually subject to Westminster (parliament). With full devolution or independence, Scotland may enjoy this same status, unless it goes the whole way and funds it's own Army and Navy, and not need the status of "Protectorate".
Online casinos know all of this, and make it hard for players to take court action (except for the most determined ones). Many businesses are bluffing, and will often "reconsider" when legal papers are actually served, just look as the UK banks for example, who would often pay up over disputed charges if their bluff got called, and a summons from the small claims court landed on their desk
The same could be done with a casino. IF their terms state that a particular jurisdiction applies to their contract, then any action can be taken there, which is why many prefer to be governed by the laws of such places as Netherlands Antillies, Kahnawake, Curaco, Panama & Costa Rica for example.
Which jurisdiction does Bet365 nominate in it's terms?