Euro Sports Book Review Bet-at-Home

[huston...@gmail.com]

This site seems to lock people out with out explaination...

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.

Links
http://www.sportsbookreview.com/forum/bet-at-home.com/
http://www.sportsbookreview.com/sbr/Bet-At-Home/