The player had an existing account with Bet-at-home. The player opened a second account at Bet-at-home with the intent of collecting an extra bonus. Bet-at-home identified the player as having two accounts after a single bet was placed, but before the event occurred.
Bet-at-home confiscated the entire player's deposit as "punishment" for trying to collect a second bonus.
Issue: Can a sportsbook confiscate the deposit of a player that attempts do defraud them via opening multiple accounts?
With any dispute, our standard is always "How would a U.S. court rule if internet sports gambling were legal in the U.S.?"
The industry standard for dealing with a fraudulent account is to cancel all wagers and refund the deposit (a book may deduct transaction costs as from the deposit). Any variation from this must be spelled out clearly.
First, look at Bet-at-home's terms and conditions. There is one that is close to being on point. It reads
"11. Only one betting account may be opened per customer. Free betting vouchers may be redeemed only once per person, family, household and a generally used computer. If a person opens several betting accounts with a view to redeeming a number of free credit vouchers, bet-at-home reserves the right to freeze all accounts and to withhold any payouts which may be due."
The term "withhold any payouts" is ambiguous. Are they really saying "we will confiscate any balance including the deposit?" If that is their purpose, they must spell that out clearly. Another reasonable reading of this rule is that they will withhold any payouts - until their fraud investigation is done, when only the deposit will be paid.
With Bet-at-home's terms and conditions, it is unreasonable to confiscate a deposit. But how would this dispute go if they had a rule that clearly spelled out their intent to seize a deposit if you opened up a second account?
When a party is defrauded, the law tries to place that party in the position it would be in if the fraud never happened. This is accomplished by canceling all wagers and bonuses, and refunding the deposit (minus any transaction fees). If a rule goes further than this, it falls into the "gotcha" category. If a book had a rule "if your balance shows a net gain of exactly $1000 at the end of a week, we'll confiscate it", it doesn't mean it is reasonable for a book to enforce it. "Fine print" rules (which I define as being on a separate T&C page at a sportsbook) must have some semblance of fairness, and to the extent that they are unfair and unreasonable, they are unenforceable under U.S. law.
In this case, Bet-At-Home has improperly confiscated a player's deposit. Unless this is immediately addressed, I would support reversing their recent upgrade.
Bet-at-home confiscated the entire player's deposit as "punishment" for trying to collect a second bonus.
Issue: Can a sportsbook confiscate the deposit of a player that attempts do defraud them via opening multiple accounts?
With any dispute, our standard is always "How would a U.S. court rule if internet sports gambling were legal in the U.S.?"
The industry standard for dealing with a fraudulent account is to cancel all wagers and refund the deposit (a book may deduct transaction costs as from the deposit). Any variation from this must be spelled out clearly.
First, look at Bet-at-home's terms and conditions. There is one that is close to being on point. It reads
"11. Only one betting account may be opened per customer. Free betting vouchers may be redeemed only once per person, family, household and a generally used computer. If a person opens several betting accounts with a view to redeeming a number of free credit vouchers, bet-at-home reserves the right to freeze all accounts and to withhold any payouts which may be due."
The term "withhold any payouts" is ambiguous. Are they really saying "we will confiscate any balance including the deposit?" If that is their purpose, they must spell that out clearly. Another reasonable reading of this rule is that they will withhold any payouts - until their fraud investigation is done, when only the deposit will be paid.
With Bet-at-home's terms and conditions, it is unreasonable to confiscate a deposit. But how would this dispute go if they had a rule that clearly spelled out their intent to seize a deposit if you opened up a second account?
When a party is defrauded, the law tries to place that party in the position it would be in if the fraud never happened. This is accomplished by canceling all wagers and bonuses, and refunding the deposit (minus any transaction fees). If a rule goes further than this, it falls into the "gotcha" category. If a book had a rule "if your balance shows a net gain of exactly $1000 at the end of a week, we'll confiscate it", it doesn't mean it is reasonable for a book to enforce it. "Fine print" rules (which I define as being on a separate T&C page at a sportsbook) must have some semblance of fairness, and to the extent that they are unfair and unreasonable, they are unenforceable under U.S. law.
In this case, Bet-At-Home has improperly confiscated a player's deposit. Unless this is immediately addressed, I would support reversing their recent upgrade.