I’VE written here recently that the failure of the Gambling Commission to deal with the problem of betting firms deciding to void bets was merely going to encourage more behaviour of that ilk.

In the first two instances, with BetBright and 188Bet, the decision to void outstanding bets was justified by the firms as they were ceasing sportsbook activities, but while this caused the commission some concern, the end result was that they felt the end result was justifiable, and that’s what causes the problem.

As I said at the onset of the BetBright debacle, it doesn’t matter if you think the end result is fair (it wasn’t, for the record) if the process is flawed, and allowing the voiding of open bets without the agreement of both sides is a fundamental error, and a policy which goes against the very essence of betting as a contract between parties.

If BetBright can do it without censure, then so can 188Bet, and if that still provokes no response from the regulator, then it’s only a matter of time before a firm who face unwelcome liabilities simply decide that they will cancel any bets they don’t like.

Well, it should come as no surprise that a firm licenced to operate in the UK has done exactly that.

WARNING

Bet-resolution expert Paul Fairhead recently sent out a warning to his Twitter followers not to bet with a certain firm – who I won’t name until this issue is resolved – on the basis of them voiding ante-post bets shortly before settlement was due.

Specific details are best kept sketchy, but I understand that like BetBright the liabilities involve divisional football bets which have run the course of an entire season, but have only been deemed unacceptable many months after the bets were struck, and at a point where the likelihood of them winning had increased hugely.

NO REASON

Unlike the previous cases this year, the firm in question are offering no reason for their decision other than that they can.

This would be absolutely comical if it wasn’t so serious, with the firm in question needing to write new terms and conditions after voiding the bets in order to give some justification to their actions.

To be clear, there is no accusation of wrongdoing on the part of the customers, with the bookmaker in question simply using a clause that allows them to void any bet at any time, at their own discretion, and without further explanation.

ILLEGAL

This kind of clause should be illegal, and undermines the business of bookmaking and the reputation of those who would never stoop so low.

Unlike the previous cases, however, this clause is palpably unfair to customers, not only because such terms make a mockery out of the concept of “fair and open betting”, but simply because the clause which justified voiding the bets was introduced after the fact.

Many firms include a line in the terms along the lines of “we reserve the right to amend these terms at any time without notice”, and while that in itself has not been challenged – new products and precedents mean that betting rules will need to evolve over time – I would argue that any material change to a company’s terms should require GC approval to ensure its fairness as customers cannot be expected to trawl through dozens of pages of text every time they want a bet, and that’s what is expected of them.

Currently, firms must inform customers when there has been a change in the terms and conditions, but they do not have to tell them what that change is, which is clearly bonkers.

TOLERATED

I accept that there was little the Gambling Commission could have done to change what happened with the specifics of the BetBright and 188Bet scenarios, but it was obvious to many of us that the precedent would see others trying a similar ploy, and there should have been a strong message that such practices would not be tolerated.

That message did not come, and now we have another tawdry display. At least this gives them an opportunity to stamp hard on the practice, and hopefully to see the practice of unilateral cancellation of bets outlawed formally.

This particular case looks like a penalty kick at first glance, so let’s hope the regulator is facing the correct way when taking aim.

What we’ve got here is failure to communicate.