or where is the gambling act?
$6,000 Welcome Bonus
The government has not released a draft Gambling Act this year. It is unclear when the Bill will be published. In Touch Games was fined £3.4m in March.
In November, CAP and BCAP published updated guidance on problem gambling. In October, they discussed new guidance about advertising in-game purchases in apps and video games. The guidance took effect on 1 November and was published on 11 November. It does not introduce new requirements but clarifies how the CAP Code and the BC APA Code apply to in game advertising and storefronts.
The guidance restricts ads that present gambling products in a way that emphasises the skill, knowledge or intelligence involved. It also restricts adverts that imply that offers (eg money back, 'free bets', bonuses or enhanced odds) are a means to reduce risk.
Present gambling products in a way that emphasises the skill, knowledge or intelligence involved. State or imply that offers (eg money back, free bets, bonuses or enhanced odds) are a means to reduce risk.
Apple can't prevent in-app links to third party payment options. Epic Games challenged this and won. The decision is being appealed. Apple takes a 30% cut on in app payments. Epic has a similar case proceeding against Google. Other apps with inapp purchases welcome the decision. In November, Apple's request for an indefinite stay against the order was turned down.
In April, the High Court granted summary judgment to a claimant seeking to recover winnings of over £1.7m from Betfred. BetFrederict argued that the winings were a result of a software defect and that their website ts and cs, EULA and game play terms excluded its liability to pay the claimant. The judge ruled that these terms were not transparent in accordance with the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
The exclusion clauses did not exclude liability to pay out. The way they were presented meant they did. Not being incorporated into the agreements was not transparent in accordance with the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
The terms and conditions for eGaming were riddled with typographical errors. The text was not clear enough and the presentation was unhelpful. It was necessary to scroll through repetitive pages to find the relevant clauses. The EULA was closely typed and ran to 24 pages when printed. There was no clear explanation of the game rules. They were not transparent or fair. Betfred was allowed to sweep away a player's winnings following bona fide play. This was a violation of a law. A court ruled that the terms were vague and did not cover the circumstances of this case. In the case, the judge said it would have required a strained and unnatural meaning to make them cover relevant liability.
The terms and conditions and EULA were not clear enough and did not cover the relevant circumstances of the case. The presentation was unhelpful and often iterative in closely typed lower-case letters with numerous paragraphs of capital letters. It was suggested that a player consult an attorney if in doubt as to the meaning of a contract. The text was repetitive with absent or inconsistent numbering and typographical errors. There was no clear explanation of what the game rules were. They were closely-typed and ran to 24 pages when printed. Nothing in the introductory wording suggested players were directed to a term which purported to allow Betfred to sweep away a winnings following bona fide play.
