Careful with those terms and conditions

The cat-and-mouse game played between online gambling operators and so-called advantage players has resulted in hugely complicated and lengthy Terms and Conditions at many online venues, and bitter debates over their application.

This week a UK court threw out a spread betting firm’s case, ruling that the company’s 49-page terms and conditions were an “unfair contract”, which meant that the punter was not liable for the loss, the Metro daily newspaper reports.

The case involved a claim that a Spreadex punter, Colin Cochrane, lost GBP 50,000 on the spread-betting site after he left his computer on by mistake, and it was used by his girlfriend’s 5-year-old son to ‘play games.’

Deputy judge David Donaldson ruled that the 49-page terms and conditions from Spreadex were an “unfair contract”, which meant that Cochrane was not liable for the loss, Metro reports

Cochrane claimed that the loss-making trades in gold, silver and oil were made by his girlfriend’s infant son, and that the transactions were made without his knowledge or authorisation. He had been away visiting a friend for two days last May when the trades occurred, he claimed.

Cochrane’s girlfriend told him that his computer had been used by her infant, who had been playing games on it, Donaldson noted.

“[The terms and conditions were] entirely inadequate to seek to make the customer liable for any potential trades he did not authorise,” Donaldson ruled.

Related and similar