Results 1 to 4 of 4
  1. #1
    Triple7 is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    January 2015
    Location
    Transylvania
    Posts
    2,508
    Thanks
    1,805
    Thanked 2,221 Times in 1,189 Posts

  2. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Triple7 For This Useful Post:

    AussieDave (8 January 2019), Betreels Casino (8 January 2019), ocreditor (10 January 2019), The Buzz (9 January 2019), TheGooner (9 January 2019)

  3. #2
    AussieDave's Avatar
    AussieDave is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    November 2005
    Location
    from the land downunder
    Posts
    3,001
    Blog Entries
    1
    Thanks
    888
    Thanked 884 Times in 533 Posts

    Default

    Well done Mr X, for taking these crooks to court.
    Even better, the Paris court refused to accept Bwin's excuses, and order settlement in favour of the player

    These T&C contracts with 'do as we like, when we want, FU clauses' fall over like a house of cards, when brought before a court!
    Last edited by AussieDave; 8 January 2019 at 10:55 pm.
    ---
    A world of casino slot games at Spin City Slots
    ---
    Do the right thing, even when no one is looking. It's called integrity.
    ---

  4. #3
    The Buzz's Avatar
    The Buzz is offline GPWA Gossip Hound
    Join Date
    February 2007
    Location
    Newton, MA
    Posts
    3,208
    Thanks
    172
    Thanked 1,239 Times in 755 Posts

    Default

    Here is an English version of the article:

    Bwin.com convicted for refusing to pay winnings to a player

    In a judgment of 18 December 2018, the Paris Court of First Instance ruled that sports betting operators could not invoke the odds and error to cancel betting contracts and thus not pay bettors' winnings. The operating company of the site Bwin.com was condemned to pay to a player near 4 000 € for the unmet winnings on its paris on line and 1 000 € damages for the rupture of the contract.

    An individual had an account on Bwin.com between 2014 and 2016, on which he had regularly entered into online betting contracts. However, during this period, the site had refused to pay him the winnings of several bets he had won, because of errors on the odds. In support of these cancellations, the site had invoked a clause of its general conditions by which it is authorized to cancel bets or bets in case of errors of odds. Now, the court notes, these are not errors resulting from a breakdown or an external cause. The site does not indicate why these errors escaped his vigilance and why he could not prevent them. The court considers that "being the organizer of the bets and the only one authorized to decide the quotations which it wishes to apply, it is up to him to organize himself to prevent the errors".

    The site alleged that the player was, in fact, a gaming professional and was also president of a horse racing consultancy and trader of an online gaming operator. The court evaded this argument by explaining that the person involved had bet on Bwin.com as a particular gambling client and stated that "its potential quality as a gaming professional does not prohibit him from engaging in it personally companies in which it has interests. "For the court of Paris, the player in question thus has the quality of consumer. And he adds that "the fact that he is a skilled player able to detect flaws, optimize his bets does not allow him to refuse the payment of his winnings. ".

    As a result, the site must pay him the unpaid winnings on the three contentious games.
    Finally, the bettor accused the site of closing his account unilaterally while no breach had been established. The court finds that the real motive appears to be the ability of the player to optimize his bets and make gains. "In any event, the closure of the account for convenience of the organizer paris in these conditions, which could be compared or equated to a refusal of sale illegitimate within the meaning of Article L.121-1 of the Code de consumption, justifies the award of damages. In the case of the same injury, he can not be compensated twice. ", Concluded the court.

  5. #4
    JoeHarris's Avatar
    JoeHarris is offline Sponsor Affiliate Program
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    I move around
    Posts
    74
    Thanks
    29
    Thanked 40 Times in 28 Posts

    Default

    It seems that the Casino was treating him differently as he was a professional gambler who was in the industry.

    The site alleged that the player was, in fact, a gaming professional and was also president of a horse racing consultancy and trader of an online gaming operator. The court evaded this argument by explaining that the person involved had bet on Bwin.com as a particular gambling client and stated that "its potential quality as a gaming professional does not prohibit him from engaging in it personally companies in which it has interests. Backfired on them though...

    "the fact that he is a skilled player able to detect flaws, optimize his bets does not allow him to refuse the payment of his winnings. ".



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •