Topic: A Gambling Operator Court Case (Read 351 times)

Ideally, if a person gambles every day, that is 7 times per week, which should be almost 28 days of the month, the casino should reach out to the customer because this is not responsible gambling at all. And if the individual refuses to quit, there should be a notice that their account would be frozen if they don't bring it under control.

What these gambling addicts are trying to do is that they want to eat their cakes and still have it. This is why casinos have to be very meticulous and serious about their business because these weak links can cost them a lot of money where their lawyers find lapses. When gamblers take gambling operators to court it doesn't look good for the casino's name and business no matter whether the final judgement is in their favour.

I find it interesting that cryptocurrency exchanges generally limit withdrawals to $5,000-$10,000 a day for non-verified users, and this law is very highly enforced by authorities/exchange operators. Yet, betting companies still allow someone to deposit and gamble $20,000+ a day without any verification required, and only look into the matter after the gambler themselves raises a complaint (generally after the gambler loses). I am also sure that if the gambler one, bet365 would have done everything in their power to make the winnings difficult to withdraw.

There definitely needs to be some reform in both the crypto and fiat gambling sectors. It's long overdue.

Lol, why would the operator stop him if he isn't stopping himself? And how is the operator responsible for anything that he had lost? If the bets that he made were all wins or at least he was in a lot of profit, he would probably never think of doing such a thing and wouldn't even mention that placing 163 bets was a crazy move since it would have worked out for him.

I literally hate those people who doesn't have the courage to accept their mistakes and take responsibility for what they've lost themselves but instead go ahead and blame others for what has happened to them when in reality, others have nothing to do with it.

The casino is not responsible for someone losing at gambling because when that person is gambling, the casino assumes that the person is aware of the risk of losing his money. The casino assumes that the person can be responsible for himself and his money in gambling so that it will free the person to play gambling.

And it seems that the casino can tell which gambler has lost a lot of money and the casino can tell that he has gambled too much. And maybe the casino has done it but the gambler just doesn't care. We don't know what happened and can only guess.

The casino's terms of service will unquestionably affect the likelihood that the case will be successful. The majority of casinos don't set betting limitations because doing so would be beneficial to their business and they wouldn't care if certain wagers were losers, but others do monitor player activity and impose limits on their gambling activities.
But in my opinion, a responsible gambler shouldn't base all of his limitations on the casino. It is our personal obligation to limit our urges to gamble, especially if we are going overboard. We must use caution when establishing limits and allocating money for gambling. We can't always hold the casino responsible for our poor choices and actions.

Yes they have the right to do such things but that thing is unethical and it will be a reason why people will avoid their casino, but technically they can do it better to read the T&C of every casino he will going to play his money with so that he will not regret something that beyond the things that he know. I agree he should always check the payout rates.

Boom! An enigma that reads more like a gumshoe novel than a humble episode at a casino table! Feels like 'Casino Royale' collided with 'Judge Judy'! This concept of a daily bet cap - isn't it akin to limiting how much candy a child should get at a fiesta? Overindulgence is detrimental, we concur. But who draws the line? The casino overseer? Isn't it alarmingly like the serpent guarding the garden?

Isn't it beguiling to muse about the duties of these betting titans? Visualize an algorithm stating, "That's enough roulette for today" and blocks your access! Are we to entrust our ethics to AI? Or will we soon be reading, "Rebel AI Squanders User's Fortune - Insists it's For His Benefit"? Remember, everything that shines isn't treasure, particularly in the dazzling aura of the casino.

Everything will rely on the casino's terms, players, when they sign up, agree to the terms, and if on the terms there's no limit and it's up to the gambler to control his bets then it's going to be a loss case, he doesn't have a good lawyer his lawyer knows that this is a lost case and like another complaint in the scam section his lawyer is just going to milk him, he should get a second opinion to enlighten him if he should continue the case, anyway I look at this case its a loss case and many will agree that it is.

As far as I know, gambling has probabilities and activities that are implemented by casinos by having mechanisms and perceptions for different users in each casino and different levels of betting, different mechanisms differ in games, whether it's sports games, slots and so on.

Bottom line: the casino can identify each bet placed by the user in different games, for this reason it is highly recommended that users before placing a bet always consider the payout rates available by the casino, so that users don't have problems with guaranteed payment of winnings, even though the bets placed are calculated by the casino.

Yes, the casino has the right to that, if they can't afford to pay the winnings, like I said above, it's really necessary to choose a casino that is responsible for the user's winnings.

A sad story when you are the one running the business.

Imagine people suing McDonald's because they didn't stop them from eating at the same fast food store every day and it got out of hand that they did it twice a day so they get fat.
Imagine a pork store being sued because they didn't stop a man from buying a lot of pork and so he was now feeling high blood pressure and admitted to hospital because he experience a mild stroke.

This is an abuse of their habit and they should not be pointing fingers at who is at fault. It's only the gambler who made a big mistake here and should be blaming himself.
Now, if he can prove that he registered for a "responsible gambling" service then I might agree with him, if not, there's nothing a business should answer about. What a f**ked up world we have if they will be the ones paying for the gamblers' greed.
They only offered a service to gamble with our favorite casino games and sports, it will depend on us on how we will control it.

So how is the case going on? Did the gambler able to beat the betting company in court?

Personally, I doubt the court will reward the decision to the gambler. There's a lot reminder everywhere the importance of responsible gambling. Plus gambling is not illegal and is supposed as an entertainment hubs.

It's like obese people that consumes a lot of food regularly on fast foods and then suing them. Or a cigarette smoker who's suffering from a disease related to smoking addiction, this might have the better chances of winning in the court.

it's not a simple discussion.
Few more elements....
there was a very specific pattern in his deposits (for example the days on which deposits were made were the same, always, linked directly with salary received).
he received offers to push him to play, likewise promotion/ bonus etc
the site had not provided any kind of assistance even if requested.
In short, it is not such a simple matter... And for sure these events could boost authority to approve new laws.
I always suggest setting maximum limits on the amount It can deposit or bet. for who use cryptocurrencies... use cold wallets that are difficult to access or multisignature wallets!

     -  I just read of such a situation where a gambler complained to the game operator at the casino simply because he was not prevented from gambling so as not to lead to a large amount of loss.

In fairness, that gambler loses more than 21k$ a day. It means that he is a rich gambler, he throws money in a casino. Isn't it the gambler's responsibility if he knows that his loss is big, he should stop and should not blame the gaming operator. That's why others say that we must gamble responsibly.

Act of desperation I guess. IIRC his case, His company went down and he use the remaining money to gamble and recover his company loses quickly but it turns out that he lose more in the process. He is really in the impression of addiction since he is not in the right mind before he gamble which maybe the case he use to convince the judge.

This is the beauty of the court. Their judgement is always based on facts and evidence but judges have emotion which somehow they empathize the complainant situation to come up with that kind of ruling.

Casino do monitor every players activity especially high roller. I think they knew what’s going on and they just really turn a blind eye because they knew that it’s none of their business but sadly judge doesn’t think that way. 

It's always like that, people only like to win and make money, but they can't accept lose, similar like people who invest in Bitcoin and hope their investment would be doubled overnight

People who can't accept lose in slot or luck based games are better to gamble on skill based games e.g. sport because the result is 100% transparent. There's no photoshopped in sport, although there's still a chance of scripted or fixed game.

People should be responsible for their actions and how they control their vice, it's not the obligation of the casino to check if you are spending what you can afford to lose, especially in a platform like a casino where their business model is to make profit from your bets.
Casinos are profit driven you're looking for entertainment and a chance to make a profit and the casino will give it to you, but if you lose then you should be man enough to accept your losses when you bet you accept the uncertainty of the results, or whatever results it will yield.

It's sad, yes, but at the same time dumb as well. Why not blame internet providers for giving access to gambling websites now. Addicts gotta stop victimizing themselves if the underlying cause is themselves and not external parties. I mean said gambler would've probably still done the same thing regardless of what casino down the line.

And I highly doubt casinos would put a limit, even if requested by a user (unless it's a feature of the casino, which is highly unlikely to happen, but will probably be welcomed by addicts). Their a business after all, primary goal is to make profit. Money from your average joe vs money from a gambling addicts are both money anyway.

We always take our own risks in life and win or lose based on our own efforts. It seemed childish to me to blame someone else for an event that was under our own responsibility. If the person who lost his money in gambling was in the opposite situation and he won money, would he complain about the casino? Of course he wouldn't do that. He would thank the casino and walk away. In my opinion, his behavior is unacceptable and funny. He must learn to act like an adult.

I have not come across such a limit. Usually the limits are about the maximum amount of money. In addition, certain warnings appear in consecutive losses and it is said that you should pay attention. Other than that, I don't know anything about maximum limits. It seems absurd to me that people blame other things for their losses. They must know how to stop themselves when they lose.

We have to be careful when it comes to gambling it would be foolish to court the gambling operator. All forms of gambling are not in the external world. They can't do anything in court for online gambling the name of the gambling sites will be bad. Most of the sites are operated from outside the country. New sites are springing up every day as the demand increases they even have mobile apps most of the controls are from outside the country. Therefore, the site should be carefully considered and practice gambling context.

I doubt that the gambler has any chance to be successful at court. Theoretically you could extend this case to any addiction or problematic behavior. If I go into a bar and drink two bottles of Whiskey, then get into my car and crash it into a wall, I can't go to court and sue the bar owner. Unless I explicitly let him know in advance that I am an alcoholic and I am going to drive home my car. But even then it usually would at maximum mean that this only touches upon criminal law and the bar owner might get a penalty, but he would certainly not be liable for any financial damage I personally incurred due to crashing my car into the wall.

I don't even know what the responsibility of the casino would be when a gambler sends an email stating that he has a gambling addiction, the casino doesn't block the account and the gambler loses 10,000 USD. Would the casino then be liable? It is an interesting legal question, but I am convinced that this is usually not going well for the plaintiff.

Passing some laws is also difficult because every case is different. As it has been said here if someone is a multi millionaire and loses 10k a night, why would anyone really care? But raising the bar so high that a casino has to scrutinize every single individual life situation also doesn't sound very realistic.

This one mentioned by OP is certainly not going to work out for the gambler.

Well this is another very funny story to me and I see no reason why a casino should be sued for ones intentional losses and I have just one simple question for the player which is, if he had won some very good amount from his betting would  he ask for a refund or be grateful?
I'm sorry the player has to loss such amount of money but the truth be told that taking the casino to court over  this kind of incidence is a total waste of money because I believe  there is a warning not to gamble more than you can loss and people shouldn't  gamble with borrowed money too  and just with this  warnings alone, I believe the case  might be in favour of the casino  

do you really think the guy will win this case? we all know, casinos don't limit your betting so long you have money in your account. and never heard a casino or bookie limiting their player's bet, unless they have small bankroll and they can't pay the winnings of the player.
the case was published last year, so don't know the updates on this case. but had he been winning, i don't think he will sue the Entain company. now, he lost a lot of money beyond his monthly take-home, hence, he found a way to sue the casino. fiat-based casinos may have not been strict in implementing their terms but do we really expect them to call their players one by one asking where they are getting their money to gamble on their platform?

All I know is casinos track cheaters but not all their players' bets as long as it is legit if there is no maximum bets that a player can do that is set by the terms, they can bet all they want, based on the article OP provided about Bet365 getting sued for the maximum bet.


So it's worth watching this case if the player won casinos will look into limiting their members' betting and how much they can lose after doing an assessment and that could be bad for many casinos.

This is a mainstream gamble site that makes a large amount of money in that country.  The lawsuit is hoping its more profitable for the company to give something back from the lost bets then look bad in the context of possible problem gambling, its a fair gambit I guess.   Its not the frequency of bets exactly but the duration in one day and possibly the percentage of wealth that customer had that was gambled.   A normal company wont know how much you have available to gamble but I suppose a very safe gamble operation could be required to run a credit check and operate limits based off that premise.

Agreed. Not victim blaming here but for me, the sole responsibility of ensuring that you're not addicted to anything, gambling especially, is that you know how to assume control of your urges and yourself. If you can't control your gambling habits no matter how much block or limit casinos impose upon you when you reach a certain threshold, you'll find other ways to gamble just to get that fix. You're not gonna stop until your whole bankroll's swiped. That's why I advocate for control, and ensuring that you don't fall off the deep end when you gamble. It's a pretty simple concept.

Besides the background checking of users, I think (and this is for this particular gambler only) there needs to be intervention in the form of a therapy or something to stop and whet off any addiction that this guy has, he's gonna ruin families and his life, I swear.

I don't understand why some gamblers expect that they will be stopped by the casino owners about their gambling activities?
That is true, it is business. So as much as possible they want their players to play or bet as long as they want.
Also, there is reason why they put the disclaimer about Responsible Gambling. Because it is your own choice why you are playing in the first place.
Actually, there's no maximum bets that I have seen in all casinos or bookies that you can make.
So they won't stop you from playing. Unless, they have self-exclusion feature and you signed up for that.
But with what the OP presented, the gambling operator can easily win such case. Gamblers should read the terms of the casino.

If the Operator needs to stop the gambler, then how could things work for the operators. Maybe that particular website might've got set its own terms of service. Gambling is pure business for its owners, so they never intend to stop a gambler in between his wagering activities.

If someone stops a gambler citing his limits were crossed, who gonna use the same platform again. What if a gambler is on his winning streak and suddenly the casino operator requests to stop wagering. What will happen, this is completely unacceptable by the gamblers. Anyhow it is every gamblers responsibility to understand the platform's terms of service and start using it.

This is a funny thing that happens in betting arena but to be serious it is not the fault of the operator that he lost so much money. Well if he has gone on to the court, I think what he is likely to be looking at is:

1. The terms and conditions if there is account limit or limitation that will stop the player from playing if he has gotten to a certain number of games played or duration.

2. Manipulation, this is in the case the first point was proved that there account limitation so it will become an onus to prove that the operator manipulated his account to deactivate the limit order so that he will continue playing. Other than these area of manipulation of account limit, I don't see how a gambler that have chosen to try his luck to double his money would turn back to cause trouble after loosing his money by himself.

Online gambling? yeah probably they have the ability to monitor everyone in this system, because if they can flag someone as cheating on their system so they identify spikes or unusual betting activity for every account. But as far as casinos stopping them? I doubt that they will do that.

The responsibility belongs to the gamblers themselves, they have the control, if not they obviously they will lose money. Not siding with the casinos here, but I guess the individual is just looking for some ways to recover what he have lost to that casino, hence he is blaming everyone including the casino and not himself.

In some country, they held the casino responsible for the player.  Since they have these regulations and agreement they have these regulation that the casino should take steps to prevent gambling addiction.  So in your stated case, it is possible that the country has the kind of regulation and law that casino is responsible to keep their client not addicted to gambling, and having that regulation, the player who file a complaint will surely win.


Probably the player has found an exploit on the casinos regulations and had consulted a lawyer the possible reasons to blame the casino of his losses.  The case stated by @OP is not a rare case, there are really people who wanted to outsmart the system by finding loopholes on the rules and regulation in order to take back what they had lost.

Casinos should have a solid policy when it comes to this so they cannot be sued easily.
That gambler is too desperate to recover some money from his losses, remember its your money and you are responsible for that. The site will not stop you from losing the money because this is gambling, that’s their way to make profit. Let’s just see how this case will end.

^That question comes up quickly in my mind.
Let us accept that casinos why here just because of the business, because of making a profit, they don't care how much your bet as long as you did not violate any. Many casinos have systems in place to monitor and identify unusual spikes in a user's betting activity. These systems are typically part of the casino's responsible gambling policy, aimed at detecting signs of problem gambling or potentially fraudulent activity. If unusual betting patterns are detected, the casino may take actions such as notifying the user, restricting their account, or implementing additional responsible gambling measures, this commonly happens especially if you are in a winning position.

Why is it that people sue the house after numerous losses? The gambler somehow had a better lawyer than the Swiss casino, unless the Swiss casino wrote on their terms and condition that they'll stop addicts from staking so much money, then the gambler has a better chance over the casino. A gambler that staked 3million dollars at a go, should be cautious of his expenses while gambling. What if he won most of the games and made more profits would he complain that the house didn't stop him? on the other hand, if he spent that amount on night club would he sue the club owner for not stopping him from buying expensive wines? things get tricky when it comes to casino, due to addicts.

Why didn't he stop himself?

If he wins the legal case, there really is a need for casinos to check the backgrounds of their users before they reach this point. Any user could just purposely hit their maximum and take legal action to make money in court and not in the casino. That's the way to make money not win on a poker table.

The gambler can not win in court because it is his money and it is gambling with it and what did he want an operator to do? What if he continued to gamble and win and win, he would embe expecting payment with happiness. The gambling operator do not do anything wrong.

But because gamblers are seeing the operator, there can (but not necessary) be something like advice for people that they think are losing too much, like telling them to better stop. Not by forcing them to stop but an advice.

What I know that happens in all gambling places that I have seen before are people that can stay there all day long everyday gambling, but most of them are playing with just small amount of money. But in general, I do not have the gambling operator to blame at all, people should discipline themselves.

But i don't get why he blames the casino for not stopping him, I mean, he is an adult and that should be his responsibility, he needs to learn when to stop. This seems like an excuse to try to get his money back, and I don't think it will work at all.

But in the end, he is a high roller which means he has enough money to pay a big drama, I will follow this case and see how it ends.

Honestly, to this day I don't know of any case where a given company was forced to regulate the consumption of exaggerated products or services by customers.
With the exception of bars or similar, where the excessive consumption of alcohol by a customer can lead to problems of depredation or bad image on the part of the customer.
So, as long as the customer is paying regularly, there's no point in banning it.

But, I do agree that this really should change when it comes to gambling. It depends on each country, obviously, to create a law that tracks the gaming habits and average spending of a player, and at least alerts the player when a certain limit is reached or even limits its operations in stricter cases.

But for that, there needs to be a law, otherwise, I doubt that casinos, like any establishment, will prevent customers from consuming their services.

It's because there are still no concrete parameters and settings that are in place in most casinos that discourages chronic gamblers from playing. Casinos are still looking to profit from these people, so they won't impose such rules, some may even throw out that "gambling addiction awareness articles and campaigns" to absolve themselves of the guilt, or the crime thereof if they base in places where gambling over a certain threshold requires the casino to stop or intervene the gambler.

I don't see this ever changing, cause there's no profit to be made in this act of kindness. So with every gambler here, the only way you can surely save yourself from gambling addiction is to actually impose and practice self-control. Can't expect other people to do it for you.

Indeed, this is a case of a gambler trying his luck once again into filing a case for blaming his loss on the operator. Again, any gambling activity is NOT mandatory- it is upon the discretion of the person if he/she wants to gamble in the first place. Before you also delve into this kind of activity, there is that expected win/loss due to the nature of the activity itself.

I doubt that the case will proceed and the gambler would win this. Blaming others for "failing to stop you" upon a discretionary act is just plainly a last attempt which is obviously futile in the end. I just find it hilarious that people would go into lengths and blame others for their losses.

Believe or Not there’s a real life story that user manage to get a compensation from a casino due to the court ruling in favor of the gambler. If anyone remember the story of Christian Hainz agains a Swiss casino. He loss $3 million in the casino due to his addiction. He accused the casino that they are manipulating him and use his addiction to take advantage on him for not stopping him too early.

The court ruling about the manipulation allegation makes Hainz get a compensation of 500K USD which is not bad to recover some of his loss.

Some court is considerate on cases like gambling addiction. This is the worst nightmare of a casino in an event that the judge is in favor to the victim while they have an incompetent attorney to make their case.

You can read the story number as source for this info: https://greatbridgelinks.com/5-gamblers-who-won-casino-lawsuits/

Was the gambler testing the site or what ? If so then that's really a bad way of doing it.
I think it's the gambler's mistake since he was the one who deposited such a huge amount on the gambling site.
If he wouldn't have done that then he would have lost so much at first place.
On top of that he is also accusing the site for not alerting him? That sounds ridiculous doesn't it?

Was the gambler mentally ill or had any mental disorders that prevent him from answering for his own acts? Because I think that is the only acceptable reason to justify a favourable decision for the gambler by the court. Otherwise, it was just a person fully aware of 'cause and consequence' law risking his money in an attempt to make fast profit over it.

The problem nowadays is that people can't take responsabilities for their own acts anymore, because it's easier and acceptable by the society to blame someone else or to victimize yourself to prevent suffering the consequences for your own mistakes. Instead of learning with their mistakes, people claim to have nothing to do with it and blame someone else for that...

when a person creates an account in a casino he accepts the casino's terms of service, if that person does not see in the casino's terms anything about maximum daily bet amount then that person should not use that casino if he has problems with self control, in fact this person should not use any casino, because the responsibility for managing his money is on the player's side and not on the casino's side, this is the same as when a person takes his salary and takes a trip and stays in the most expensive hotel and I comment on the most expensive food and spend all the salary money and then start blaming the hotel, that just doesn't make any sense

I believe that this guy who sued this casino is not going to win this case, he will spend money paying a lawyer and at the end of the day he will lose the case and run the risk of the court removing him from managing his own money and nominating some relative for this and determining that he is going to be admitted to a hospital to be treated for his addiction, it is clear that he is a person addicted to gambling and has no control over himself. unfortunately there are many cases like his of addicted people who do not control themselves and blame the casino because they think the casino should stop them

There’s no such thing as maximum number of bet as long you place a normal bet then you are good to go. Casino don’t care how many bets you place and they don’t have any business to stop someone since that’s the nature of their business.

I think the only time casino might step in when you have this kind of huge quantity of bets is if you are winning big time on most of it since they might accused you of doing shady things to increase your winning percentage. Casino will not gonna stop you if you are losing big time.

Actually, Responsible gambling policy is a policy for players to read to avoid losses not the other way around. It’s a warning to prevent harm but still it’s up to the consumer on how they will handle there gambling. This user only chance of winning if his account is hacked and not under his control during that bet spike.

ding! I stopped reading right there since I can already picture the rest of this story

"He accuses the operator of failing to stop him"

Lol wut? The operator don't have a responsibility like that. If he did that, then the player would have told him to stfu. That loser needs to grow up and learn to face the consequences of his own actions. If he somehow wins that trial (which he is not gonna), then all the casinos would go bankrupt. Every other loser like him will sue the casino to get back their fairly and squarely lost money.

Maybe there are rules set now, but I remember when I was still gambling, that I was gambling like 14 hours out of 24 hours daily, and both weekdays and weekends, I have not seen any gambling site that stopped me from continuing gambling even if I continue to lose that day. But on some gambling sites, you can check some helpful articles for addicts and anyone that gambling is becoming a problem to.

No gambling site or operator can make this kind of law because the more punters lose the more their gain. Only the government can make it in a way it can be effective. But what most government in most countries are looking for in gambling is how to effectively tax punters. I do not know of other countries, but in my country, you can gamble as many and as long as you can. Some countries may have gambling laws that limit punters but I have not seen such before, and what punters in such country would say is that they do not have freedom over their own money.

I think maximum bet should be changed to maximum bankroll to be used for a day because a maximum number of bet could literally have differences. For example if you're into dice, slots, crash etc., that has huge amount of bets being taken even in just an hour of continuous betting you could really get a vast number of bets. I don't think casinos will do that unless it's a suspicious one and they shouldn't lock it as well just because the user got a maximum bet for the day and I've never seen one tbh.

A gambler made 163 bets in a day and the the casino said it acceptable. Because for some high-rolling gamblers, losing around one-third of a bankroll is considered acceptable.  This gambler is in court. He accuses the operator of failing to stop him, which led to a substantial loss. He said that, "the betting activity didn’t raise any red flags at Bet365, and if it did, it didn’t raise them high enough. It took the operator two months to step in after the massive deposit to verify the source of funds, at which time he was already down £46,907 (US$58,657)."

It should be noted that this is not the first instance of a gambler suing a gaming operator for their losses. In this instance, a gambler claimed that despite having the tools at their disposal, the gambling operator had not done enough to curb his gambling problem. This gambler could spend up to €21,135 (US$21,135) per day and, ultimately, lost €271,234 (US$271,234) in seven months.

What is the maximum number of bets that one can place per day, and do casinos have a system in place to identify any unusual spikes in a user's daily betting activity? Would it be regarded as a component of the casino's responsible gambling policy or as interfering in someone else's affairs it they lock the  gambler's account?

- https://www.casino.org/news/bet365-rejects-claim-162-bets-in-a-day-may-be-a-sign-of-a-gambling-problem/
- https://www.casino.org/news/man-making-3000-a-month-sues-entain-for-letting-him-gamble-over-2m/