Online sellers: don't gamble with the small print
$6,000 Welcome Bonus
Green v Petfre (Gibraltar) Limited (t/a Betfred) was a recent case involving an online gambling company. The court ruled that the clause in BetFred's terms and conditions had not been adequately brought to the attention of a gambler who was seeking to recover £1.7m of winnings.
Andrew Green won £1,722,500 in a blackjack game. Betfred refused to pay him because of a technical glitch in the game, which increased the odds of him winning the jackpot from 0.000018361% to 3%. Mr Green is suing BetFred for breach of terms and conditions.
Mr Green applied to strike out Betfred's defence. He argued that the exclusion clauses did not cover the actual technical glitch that had occurred. Mr Green also argued the clauses were not incorporated into the contracts with BetFred.
The exclusion clauses did not cover the technical glitch that had occurred. They were not incorporated into the contracts with Betfred.
Betfred's exclusion clauses were not properly explained to Mr Green. The judge found that the terms seeking to exclude liability were also not adequately explained. The requirements of transparency and fairness under the Consumer Rights Act were met. However, the judge made it clear that binding contracts could still be formed this way. It is not necessary to follow the clickwrap mechanism. A player is unlikely to spend significant time trawling through documentation. If it is repetitive and not clearly relevant to him, it should be explained in detail. This is the case in a gambling site where the operator’s obligation to pay is important.
