Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1
    The Buzz's Avatar
    The Buzz is offline GPWA Gossip Hound
    Join Date
    February 2007
    Location
    Newton, MA
    Posts
    3,529
    Thanks
    271
    Thanked 1,451 Times in 877 Posts

    Default Sportsbet ordered to refund self-excluded gambler who bet $150k

    Australian online sports betting operator Sportsbet has been ordered to give a full refund to a bettor who had self-excluded from gambling in November 2014, but was allowed to open a new account in January 2015 and ended up losing nearly A$150,000.

    The ruling came down on June 10, 2020 and can be read in full here: https://justice.nt.gov.au/__data/ass...-Sportsbet.pdf

    From abc.net.au:

    The man is referred to as Mr XXXX in the decision handed down last week by the Northern Territory Racing Commission. Sportsbet is among the online gambling companies registered in the NT due to favourable business conditions like competitive fees, even though they take bets from all over the country.

    "On the evidence before it, the Commission is satisfied that Sportsbet did not have at the time appropriate self-exclusion facilities and procedures in place to allow persons to self-exclude," the Commission's determination said.

    Sportsbet had therefore "failed to comply" with the conditions of its licence and given the bets were not lawful, the Commission has formed the view that it is appropriate for Sportsbet to refund the complainants' "losses".

    The Commission acknowledged that the man had not been a previous Sportsbet customer and the fault was in the company's systems, which then failed to identify him on the self-exclusion database.

    Taking into account money withdrawn from the account by Mr XXXX, the judgement means he is to be repaid $93,082.04.
    Read more here: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-06-16/sportsbet-made-to-refund-customer-who-was-on-self-exclusion-list/12357082

  2. #2
    WagerX's Avatar
    WagerX is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Posts
    2,263
    Thanks
    74
    Thanked 91 Times in 67 Posts

    Default

    This sucks.. There are so many players trying to exploit the brands. Personal accountability is paramount!. This will make it easier to exploit the brands.

  3. #3
    DaftDog's Avatar
    DaftDog is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    October 2008
    Posts
    1,834
    Thanks
    493
    Thanked 626 Times in 355 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WagerX View Post
    This sucks.. There are so many players trying to exploit the brands. Personal accountability is paramount!. This will make it easier to exploit the brands.
    I disagree and think it is good that they had to refund a problem gambler his money. With all the security and tracking available to sportsbooks and casinos I really don't understand how this could happen that the player could fool them with a new "verified account", especially when it comes to depositing that amount of money.

    I'm not trying wrap the problem gambler in a layer of cotton wool, as I know that some addicts can be very deceitful, but he did exclude himself from Sportsbet and they should not have allowed him back so easily.

  4. #4
    Triple7 is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    January 2015
    Posts
    2,710
    Thanks
    2,004
    Thanked 2,383 Times in 1,279 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WagerX View Post
    This sucks.. There are so many players trying to exploit the brands. Personal accountability is paramount!. This will make it easier to exploit the brands.

    There's no one exploiting the brand. Because of internal bureaucracy Sportsbet didn't list this player in the self-excluded database. That's no valid excuse. They had his name plus phone number, so they could block him.

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to Triple7 For This Useful Post:

    ddm (19 June 2020)

  6. #5
    ddm
    ddm is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    July 2006
    Posts
    1,012
    Thanks
    378
    Thanked 425 Times in 254 Posts

    Default

    ^ this.
    Guy was smart for making them pay for their ineptitude and legal failings.

  7. #6
    drifter8's Avatar
    drifter8 is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    March 2017
    Location
    Bulgaria
    Posts
    986
    Blog Entries
    1
    Thanks
    1,761
    Thanked 507 Times in 384 Posts

    Default

    Smart move from the player. The mistake is totally of the bookie.

    When someone complains that he is addicted, they need to put him straigt away inthe respective list.

    He played some funds , and then receivd a "money back"- reload bonus = 100%
    Seven times fall, eight times stand.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to drifter8 For This Useful Post:

    ddm (19 June 2020)

  9. #7
    LukeLambert is offline Brand New Member
    Join Date
    June 2020
    Posts
    5
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    This seems ridiculous to me, there is a certain amount of fair play that needs to happen but surely this is on the punter?
    Is there a way of viewing any of your customers that have self excluded from 1 brand? in order to identify if they have with other brands too?
    Thanks,

  10. #8
    Finntactic is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    10
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 5 Times in 4 Posts

    Default

    It is a fair ruling. If there was a requirement for Sportsbet to check central self-exclusion database, and they did not have the appropriate measures in place, they should refund the player as he should never have been able to deposit in the first place.

    Responsibility to bet is on the player, and having systems in place to block players who don't want to play should be expected. Otherwise it becomes exploitation of problem punters. Responsibility to check the players financial wealth is on the companies in many countries.

    The players can't abuse a system if it is set up correctly. It should never be a "he said/she said". Self-limitations/self-exclusions settings should be systematic and companies should have them logged in their database for evidence to avoid needing to pay anyone who is upset of losing. Any betting company will make a lot more money IF they have proper responsible gaming measure in place. Because this will lead to "healthier" players betting their money for a longer period of time.

  11. #9
    Sherlock's Avatar
    Sherlock is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    December 2013
    Location
    WC
    Posts
    3,731
    Thanks
    1,173
    Thanked 3,004 Times in 1,660 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Finntactic View Post

    The players can't abuse a system if it is set up correctly. It should never be a "he said/she said". Self-limitations/self-exclusions settings should be systematic and companies should have them logged in their database for evidence to avoid needing to pay anyone who is upset of losing. Any betting company will make a lot more money IF they have proper responsible gaming measure in place. Because this will lead to "healthier" players betting their money for a longer period of time.
    Bullsh1t nr1:
    Any shared databases of self-excluded players are ticking bombs. Those are sick and wealthy people. Any database is prone to leaking. With shared databases it is defacto constant leak. Those people will be targetted even harded. I understand politicians are stupid enough not to understand this but IT people should.

    Bullsh1t nr2:
    I do not know how betting companies can make more money by small bettors. Maybe they have some magic wand or private central bank so they can print out money. But every affiliate on revenue share knows that the whales are irreplaceable. It is no exception to see a whale making more than whole affiliate account.
    We are all bloodsucking ticks, hungry, devious
    each one latched on to the ass of the previous
    when the last and the first latch on it can be shown
    ass-blood sucked by the first from the last is his own

Posting Permissions

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