This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/oct/21/competition-watchdog-to-investigate-online-betting-firms-gambling

The article has changed 8 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 3 Version 4
Competition watchdog to investigate online betting firms Competition watchdog to investigate online betting firms
(about 7 hours later)
Online betting companies could face fines and be forced to changed their practices after it was announced they are to be investigated by the competition watchdog over whether they are treating customers fairly. Online betting companies who overturn gamblers’ winning bets using loopholes buried in the small print of their websites face losing their licences, after the competition regulator launched a probe into the industry.
The Competition and Markets Authority will investigate allegations that online bookmakers are using the small print of contracts to change the odds on winning bets so less money is paid out, to limit the amount successful gamblers can bet and to deny some users access to promotions. The Competition and Markets Authority said it had begun a review asking betting websites to explain allegations that they use “misleading promotions” and “unfair terms” to deceive customers.
The companies have been issued with notices requiring them to give evidence. If companies are found to be in breach of consumer law, the CMA can take enforcement measures against them. The regulator is understood to be receiving a flood of complaints already from gamblers who feel cheated by an industry that wins £4bn a year from them.
But the Remote Gambling Association, which represents online betting firms, played down the scale of the problem. “Gambling inevitably involves taking a risk, but it shouldn’t be a con,” said Nisha Arora, the CMA’s senior director for consumer enforcement.
“We’re worried players are losing out because gambling sites are making it too difficult for them to understand the terms on which they’re playing, and may not be giving them a fair deal.”
“We’ve heard worrying complaints suggesting people may be lured into signing up for promotions with little chance of winning because of unfair and complex conditions.”
Sarah Harrison, chief executive of industry regulator the Gambling Commission said online betting firms were “not doing enough” to draw up fair terms and conditions, which often “bamboozle” customers.
The CMA has the power to take firms to court for breach of the Enterprise Act, while the Gambling Commission can revoke betting firms’ licence to operate in the UK.
The Remote Gambling Association, which represents online betting firms, played down the scale of the problem.
The RGA said it would co-operate with the CMA probe but added: “There is no reason to believe that there are widespread failings.”The RGA said it would co-operate with the CMA probe but added: “There is no reason to believe that there are widespread failings.”
“If there are faults it is right that the CMA shines a light on them and that we collectively learn lessons from that.”“If there are faults it is right that the CMA shines a light on them and that we collectively learn lessons from that.”
“However, it would be wrong to pre-judge the outcome of an inquiry that has only just begun.“However, it would be wrong to pre-judge the outcome of an inquiry that has only just begun.
About 5.5 million people regularly use gambling websites in Britain, and the sector has grown 146% since 2009, according to the CMA.About 5.5 million people regularly use gambling websites in Britain, and the sector has grown 146% since 2009, according to the CMA.
“Gambling inevitably involves taking a risk, but it shouldn’t be a con,” said Nisha Arora, the CMA’s senior director for consumer enforcement. “We’ve heard worrying complaints suggesting people may be lured into signing up for promotions with little chance of winning because of unfair and complex conditions.” Online betting firms won about £4bn from gamblers in the 11 months to September 2015, according to the Gambling Commission.
The Gambling Commission’s chief executive, Sarah Harrison, said there were concerns that online terms and conditions appeared to “bamboozle” customers. “Gambling, by its very nature, is always going to involve risk but customers must have faith that if they win they will not end up feeling that the deck is stacked against them because of an obscure condition that they did not properly understand,” said Harrison.
“Gambling, by its very nature, is always going to involve risk but customers must have faith that if they win they will not end up feeling that the deck is stacked against them because of an obscure condition that they did not properly understand,” she said. Brian Chappell, 59, set up the campaign group Justice4Punters in March this year after several of his online betting accounts were shut down, said bookmakers were regularly changing the odds after a bet had been won, claiming the customer had breached their conditions.
Brian Chappell, 59, set up the campaign group Justice4Punters in March this year after several of his online betting accounts were shut down, said online bookmakers had shifted the rules of the game. Customers who placed successful odds regularly saw their accounts closed, with no reason given.
He said bookmakers were regularly changing the odds after a bet had been won, claiming the customer had breached their conditions. “The websites follow all of your patterns, if you seem to be doing sensible things then they shut your account down, they are often getting rid of anyone who has any ability at all,” he said.
Customers who placed successful odds regularly saw their accounts closed, with no reason given. For example, betters who didn’t use offers, such as accumulators, but regularly bet on one horse in one race. “The websites follow all of your patterns, if you seem to be doing sensible things then they shut your account down, they are often getting rid of anyone who has any ability at all.” Regulatory sources said some companies would allow a customer to place a bet at 10/1, for instance, then cancel the bet claiming they made a mistake when setting the odds.
If users challenged the decision, they were told that they had signed up to terms and conditions that allowed the site to disable any account for any reason at any time.
In one example, a man had reportedly been allowed to put £7,000 in his accounts over a short period of time without any additional checks being made, but when he won several thousand his account was restricted. The amount he was allowed to bet was capped and he was denied access to other promotions. “If they are questioned about it they say they are shutting down a very small number of accounts, but 98% of the accounts of those who are actually winnning are closed.”
Chappell said online betting companies used the excuse of money-laundering checks to stop or slow the withdrawal of winnings. He gave the example of one person who was refused the £35,000 he had won on an online casino. “They will ask for a photograph of your passport, but then say it is too fuzzy and ask for a selfie with the passport. then they might want to see a utility bill. Ultimately you might have to go to a solicitor – if it’s a relatively small sum, people will just drop it.”