Betfred Blackjack Player Wins £1.7m in the High Court

The Judgment, and Where to Read It

The case is Green v Petfre (Gibraltar) Ltd (t/a Betfred), "Neutral Citation Number: [2021] EWHC 842 (QB)", heard in the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, before "Mrs Justice Foster DBE". The hearing was on "Hearing date: 15 October 2020" and the judgment is dated "Date: 07 April 2021". The full approved judgment is published by the National Archives' Find Case Law service, so the account below is taken from the court's own words rather than from reporting of them.

What Happened

The judge sets out the facts at the start. "On 26 January 2018, just after midnight Mr Green began playing a game online called 'Frankie Dettori's Magic Seven Blackjack' (“the Game”) via an online platform hosted by the Defendant (whom I shall refer to here as 'Betfred')." The amount at stake is recorded in the same paragraph: "At the point when he finally stopped playing the Game, having left, and played elsewhere on the site for a short time, betting chips to the value of £1,722,500.24 were recorded on screen as his winnings. When he attempted to withdraw the winning chips into his cash account with Betfred he was unable to do so."

The refusal came days later: "When he was in touch with Betfred’s VIP team on the Monday he was told the win was so big it would have to be sent off to the Game provider, Playtech, to be double-checked, and that this was standard procedure. Two days later on Wednesday, 31 January 2018 a Mr Russell Young for Betfred informed Mr Green that Playtech had informed him there had been a glitch in the Game and he could not be paid out." The fault itself was common ground for the purposes of the application — "the Claimant agrees, as is pleaded in Betfred's defence, that, unknown to Betfred and to Mr Green, what appears to be a fault in the development of the Game meant that where play continued without a break, it gave much better odds of a player winning than Betfred intended."

The defence was contractual: "Betfred said they were not obliged to pay Mr Green his winnings in the circumstances, and the terms of the contract between them excluded liability to him." More precisely, "Betfred say they are not obliged to pay Mr Green his winnings because three terms in three documents of contractual effect excluded any liability to payout in these circumstances. Betfred also rely upon the doctrine of common mistake and say they are entitled to limit their obligations to a return of the stake invested by Mr Green."

What the Court Decided

The judge granted summary judgment for the player and summarised her reasons in four parts. "I have concluded that the Claimant succeeds in his application for summary judgment under a number of heads of argument." They were:

• "The wording of each of the clauses relied upon is inadequate as a matter of the natural meaning of the language in context to exclude liability to payout Mr Green's winnings in the events which happened."
• "The manner in which the relevant clauses were presented and the failure adequately to draw them to his attention meant that the three purported exclusions, even had they been effective to exclude liability, were not incorporated in the contract between the parties."
• "Even if the words of the clauses relied upon by Betfred were adequate to encompass the fault in the Game and adequately brought to Mr Green's attention so as to be incorporated in the contracts of gaming, they were not transparent or fair and Betfred were not entitled to rely upon them."
• "The doctrine of mistake is inapplicable to these facts."

On the statutory fairness test, the judgment records that "There was no dispute that, aside from some immaterial exemptions, the Consumer Rights Act 2015 requires that as between a trader such as Betfred and a consumer such as Mr Green, terms and notices must be transparent and must be fair." Applying it, "The findings made elsewhere about the drafting of the clauses means, inevitably that I am not satisfied that the three clauses relied upon to exclude liability in this case, conform to the requirements of the 2015 Act". The conclusion on reliance reads: "My findings hitherto inevitably mean that the clauses in question fell foul of the requirements of the statutory obligation of fairness. The obscurity of the language, the context of the contract, and the failure adequately to signpost the exclusion clauses and explain their consequences to the player are inconsistent with the fairness envisaged by the Act as indicated in the light of the previous relevant case law."

What the Judgment Did Not Decide

The judge was explicit about the limits of the ruling. "It is important to say that I do not make any finding that acceptance of terms by means of a "click wrap" is inadequate to form a binding contract that contains limitations to or exclusions of liability. Nor, if adequately drafted and signposted, that, even in the context of an online betting facility, liability may be excluded for events such as occurred in this case." So the case is not authority that an operator can never exclude liability for a software fault; it is authority about how clearly it would have to be done. The judgment states the standard: "A player is most unlikely to spend significant time trawling through documentation, particularly if it is repetitive and not clearly relevant to him. The exclusion of or limitation to liability to pay in circumstances where play has continued over a number of hours and is ostensibly wholly valid, is something that would need to be achieved with great care and particularity." And on what would have been required here: "Unambiguous language that made it clear Betfred intended to void a payout in such circumstances was necessary."

The Licence Conditions Behind the Same Point

The fairness requirement the court applied is also a condition of a British gambling licence. Licence condition 7.1.1 of the Gambling Commission's Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice requires that "The contractual terms on which gambling is offered and any consumer notices relating to gambling activity must be transparent within the meaning of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The contractual terms on which gambling is offered must be made available to customers in an easily accessible way." It adds that "Customers must be notified of material changes to terms before they come into effect." and that "Licensees must ensure that they do not commit any unfair commercial practices within the meaning of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 at any stage of their interactions with consumers."

Verification is meant to happen before play, not at the point of a withdrawal. Licence condition 17.1.1 states that "Licensees must obtain and verify information in order to establish the identity of a customer before that customer is permitted to gamble. Information must include, but is not restricted to, the customer's name, address and date of birth." and that "A request made by a customer to withdraw funds from their account must not result in a requirement for additional information to be supplied as a condition of withdrawal if the licensee could have reasonably requested that information earlier."

Disputed withdrawals remain the Commission's largest category of complaint. In a blog post dated 18 July 2024 the Commission's chief executive Andrew Rhodes wrote that "Our Contact Centre continues to receive around 2,000 complaints a year about delays to withdrawals." and that "Despite the progress made with some operators, withdrawal delays remain the number one subject of complaints we receive, and also feature prominently in cases raised with Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) providers." His expectation of operators is stated plainly: "Equally, where an operator has decided not to process a withdrawal, it should provide the customer with a full explanation including the basis on which it has made that decision." and "Operators should not mislead customers."

Reading the Terms, and Complaining

The Commission's consumer guidance on terms begins with a figure: "Almost 80% of gamblers do not read the terms and conditions on the websites they gamble on." Its advice is that "You should take the time to read the terms and conditions, making sure you are aware of exactly what you are gambling on, restrictions, promotions or bonus offers."

The Commission does not settle individual disputes. Its complaints guidance states that "We do not resolve or make decisions on complaints regarding gambling-related transactions." and that "If you disagree with a gambling business about the result of your gambling transaction, or about the service you have received from them, then you should first complain to them." The categories it lists expressly include "whether you have won", "how much you have been paid", "terms and conditions" and "decisions such as voiding or cancelling your bet". Where the operator's own process does not resolve it, the route is an Alternative Dispute Resolution provider, and after that the courts.