Accepting a new customer (punter) and not letting him or her have a bet might seem wild, because it is, but the story behind this headline is even worse.
The case is in the public domain on social media, so we are not making it up, plus we do have a similar case on file. The case on file is not as bad, because it only involved never getting a bet, whereas this one also involves a refusal to return the customer’s own money he had deposited.
In short; customer registers, customer deposits money, tries to have a bet, bet is refused, customer tries to withdraw his own money in disgust, company won’t let him as he’s not had a bet.
Now we would class this as theft, but the regulators see it as ‘fair and open’, because the companies’ terms and conditions (T&Cs) on page 58 (we’re making page 58 up, but you get the idea [Mr Ed]) state that a person must bet with the company before any withdrawal of funds can be made. However, the T&Cs do not say, that it may have to be a bet type of the companies’ choice, therefore it is likely the specific T&C would be found unfair in a court of law.
We would like to bet that you don’t see it as ‘fair and open’ like the regulators do?