Dutch Gambler Wins Lawsuit Against BetCity Over Unpaid Jackpot
A Dutch gambler has won a lawsuit against BetCity regarding an unpaid jackpot. The gambling company refused to pay out the jackpot because they claimed the woman had shared her account with her ex-partner. According to the judge, this was insufficiently substantiated, and therefore BetCity must still pay the woman €172,000.
A player at the legal online casino BetCity won a jackpot of no less than €172,834.12 on July 2, 2023. The amount was not paid out because BetCity announced an investigation into the woman’s player account a day later. BetCity suspected that the woman was not using her account (solely) herself and contacted the player twice.
A month after winning the jackpot, BetCity completed the investigation, the gambling company informed the woman. Her account was closed, and the jackpot was not paid out to her because she allegedly did not adhere to the general terms and conditions of the gambling site.
The woman disagreed with BetCity’s judgment and filed a lawsuit against the online casino. The woman stated that she only used her account herself and therefore was entitled to the jackpot payout.
‘Account Was Shared’
Before the judge, BetCity stated that remarkable activities had been observed on the player’s account a year before the jackpot was won. The gambling company said that sports bets had been placed on the woman’s account on lesser-known foreign competitions. Only a select group of players from BetCity’s customer base bets on such competitions.
During the period that these bets were placed on the woman’s account, she was in a relationship. Her then-partner was allegedly a player from the aforementioned select group. However, the woman’s ex-partner was supposedly registered in Cruks at that time. Partly because of this, BetCity suspected that the account was being used by her then-partner.
That suspicion was reinforced by the logging in and out between the two accounts of the former partners in a short period. BetCity allegedly saw that one account was logged out, after which the other account was logged in within seconds.
Also, attempts were allegedly made twice to deposit from a bank account that did not belong to the woman. One of these bank accounts belonged to her ex-partner, according to the ruling. The deposits were not accepted, but according to BetCity, this would indicate that the account was being ‘shared’.
Account of Son
During the court hearing, the jackpot winner acknowledged that she had been in a relationship with the person mentioned and that she had created the account with BetCity during that period. Her then-partner had explained to her how the online casino worked, but they allegedly never played together. When she won the jackpot in July 2023, the relationship in question had long been broken. The woman and her then-partner broke up in October 2022.
She could partly explain that attempts had been made to deposit from accounts other than her own. One of the two accounts belonged to her seven-year-old son, which she managed, and this allegedly happened by accident. The woman allegedly did not know that a deposit attempt had also been made from the ex-partner’s account.
The judge did not find this sufficient to substantiate that the woman had shared her account with her partner:
“The court does not share Betent’s view that this login attempt, independently or in conjunction, leads to the presumed sharing of the Player Account, in the sense that [plaintiff] would not have played for her own account, or that [name 1] played on the account of [plaintiff]. Considering the parties’ statements, this may at most have led to an attempt by [name 1] to put money into her Player Account without the knowledge of [plaintiff].”
Investigation
However, BetCity had more reasons to suspect that the woman had not played on her account herself. In the period after winning the jackpot, the woman was contacted by telephone. The woman was asked to share bank statements showing transfers between her account and that of a third person. During the hearing, this third person turned out to be the aforementioned seven-year-old son.
In addition, the woman was asked about the bets she had placed. However, she could not answer questions on the phone about which matches she had bet on and which specific behaviors had been wagered. BetCity then decided that her account should be closed and that the jackpot would not be paid out.
During the trial, the woman said that BetCity had congratulated her on winning the jackpot during the first telephone conversation. The second telephone conversation was allegedly suddenly overloaded with questions while she was at work. She was therefore unable to give concrete answers at the time, also because the questions related to bets that were far in the past.
Judge Sides With Player
The judge found the woman’s explanation plausible and ruled that BetCity had insufficiently substantiated why the jackpot had not been paid out. The ‘sharing of the account’ would also not have been made sufficiently concrete in the general terms and conditions of the gambling site. Also, the woman would have been able to sufficiently refute BetCity’s claims.
The gambling company was therefore ordered to pay out the remainder of the jackpot won. BetCity must still pay the woman €172,000.13, the part of the jackpot that the woman wanted to have paid out. In addition, BetCity was ordered to pay the extrajudicial costs of over €3,000.
Stay ahead of the curve in the fast-paced online casino world – explore the latest updates and trends at listofallcasinos.com.
