BetEasy, an australian based bookmaker, is being sued for $1,2 million for alleged unpaid winnings.
Renee Bell, one of the firm’s players, won a monster multi-bet making her a potential return of over $1,4 million, however, only saw a claim of $250,000.
Documents were filed afterwards in Supreme Court where Bell claims that BetEasy, formerly CrownBet, was “deceptive and misleading” when it accepted $500 worth of multi-bets and did not have the proper return.
Only $250,000 were paid out after Bell’s first win, adding the $100 stake, but as for the other 400$ the bets were cancelled by BetEasy and proceeded to refund the money.
Bell’s lawyers argued that BetEasy went through with all the bets placed without any warning issued about any potential limits on maximum payouts that could be applied.
“To the contrary, [BetEasy] accepted the full amount of the plaintiff’s stake for each bet without any deduction or limitation and recorded the plaintiff’s bet as returning the full amount of potential winnings,”
The statement continues, “[BetEasy] ought to have paid out to the plaintiff the amount of $1,443,695.90 in respect of the bets, but only paid the amount of $250,000, and the plaintiff claims the difference of $1,193,195.90 as a debt.”
The issue comes as according to the terms and conditions of the bookmaker the maximum payout for a multi-bet for a racing/sports or a combination of both is $250,000. The website says “It’s your responsibility to ensure you stake accordingly to the limits”
But things complicated even further as Bell filed a formal reply to the court against BetEasy’s defence about the terms and conditions claim.
Bell says that she didn’t agree to the terms and conditions in the first place as she didn’t create the account on CrownBet platform. According to her, she received an email three days after she joined Crown Casino’s Signature Club about said account and that’s when she became aware of it.
“When she joined the Crown Signature Club she did not agree to CrownBet’s terms and conditions and such terms and conditions were not brought to her attention; and when she first logged in to her CrownBet account she did not agree to CrownBet’s terms and conditions and such terms and conditions were not brought to her attention,” said the court documents sent by Bell’s lawyers.
Regardless of that, BetEasy holds up on its claim as in their terms its stated that using its website, opening an account or by placing bets, players agree to the terms and conditions. So this all falls into a loophole.
The next hearing comes in on November 13 as listed in the Supreme Court.
