Key Lessons from the Green vs. Petre Case

Posted by Harry Kane on Sunday, July 11, 2021

There’s a saying which suggests that the ‘house always wins’ in the worlds of off and online gambling, but the recent Green v Petfre court case did much to challenge this long-held assertion.

This case resulted in a seismic judgement for the claimant, who had initially been denied his online winnings after the operator in question (Betfred) had claimed that the earning had been invalidated by a glitch in the underlying software.

In this post, we’ll assess the case in further detail, while asking what lessons need to be learned going forward within the iGaming industry.

Exploring the Background of the Green VS Petre Case

The case in question started when the claimant amassed an incredibly virtual haul worth more than £1.7 million, after playing online blackjack and accumulating betting chips over a five-hour period.

The initial response was warm, with the Betfred staff congratulating the player on his success as he celebrated wildly with his family.

However, the mood quickly turned sour, as further investigation revealed that the winnings were accrued as a result of a glitch in the gaming software. As a result, Betfred refused to complete the payout, citing three specific clauses in their terms and conditions to justify such an action.

A subsequent legal battle was pitched, with the player demanding that the operator honoured his winnings in full and Betfred arguing that any liability to pay him was excluded by the conditions, individual game rules and other contractual provisions that were agreed as part of the terms of service.

The first condition referenced was Clause 4.3, which aimed to exclude liability for the quality of the software by confirming that this was provided “as is” by a third-party provider without any warranties or representations. Secondly, Betfred cited Clause 4.4 of their terms, which states that the operators did not warrant that the software would be non-infringing, error-free or uninterrupted, or that any defects would be corrected.

A reference was also made to Clause 5 of the EULA, which mirrored the aforementioned clauses while reaffirming that the operator would not be liable for any payments due as a result of a defect or software error.

While these terms seemed to present a relatively strong case in favour of the operator, the court moved quickly to reject such arguments and deliver a landmark ruling in favour of the plaintiff.

More specifically, the court found that neither the terms and conditions or any other contractual provisions cited were enough to exclude the operator’s liability to honour the player’s payment, while it also stated that the risk of winnings arising from an underlying game defect should be borne by the operator and not each individual player.

Interestingly, the court also revealed how unlikely it was that online gamblers would take the considerable time required to trawl through repetitive, lengthy and often complex T&Cs prior to playing (while suggesting that it was unreasonable for operators to expect this).

Subsequently, it has been ordered that the player should receive his winnings in full, pending any kind of appeal or legal challenge that may be issued by the operator.

What are the Key Lessons Here?

One of the biggest takeaways here is the use and presentation of terms and conditions in the iGaming space, as it has been suggested that this information offers minimal value to players and is often used to attribute loopholes and technicalities to payments, bonus offers and similar products.

The court certainly focused heavily on this, while suggesting that the provisions which purported to restrict the operator’s liability had not been adequately signposted or laid out clearly enough for the gambler.

This highlights a specific lesson for online gambling operators to heed, with broad and ambiguous wording clearly now considered to be unsuitable in the eyes of the law. This should compel proactive brands to review their various terms and conditions and how they’re articulated, with a view to creating more concise and clauses that outline each party’s rights and responsibilities.

Most importantly, drafters and legal teams should refrain from the use of complex or ‘lawyerly’ language, as there’s an increasingly pressing need to articulate terms in simple, plain English.

Similarly, operators need to do more to signpost significant clauses to the use, especially those that relate to winnings or may be cited in the event of a legal dispute. Currently, the capitalisation of text is widely used to highlight important or onerous clauses, but this is arguably insufficient to draw the reader’s attention in large and disorganised blocks of text.

Also, the over-use of capitalisation can actually have a counterintuitive effect, so it may be time for brands to seek out alternative ways of presenting and structuring their T&Cs.

Certainly, brands would be wise to prioritise their key terms and conditions and ensure that these are easily accessible and readable, while structuring the content in a way that’s more pleasing to the eye could also streamline the process of finding relevant information.

Not only would this help players to better understand and safeguard their rights, but it would also provide an additional layer of protection to operators in the event of certain law cases.

Even on a fundamental level, this case highlights the issue of fairness when considering some iGaming terms and conditions, as it seems completely illogical to make players responsible for a software error or failure.

Instead, operators must commit to assuming responsibility for the third-party software and games that they run on their sites. This at least creates a sense of accountability, particularly with regards to maintaining the performance of various gaming software and safeguarding each individual player’s winnings.

This is an important area of focus going forward, especially as the iGaming industry on these shores comes under increased scrutiny by regulators and legislators alike. So, it’s better that operators are proactive in their attempts to review their existing terms and conditions, to ensure that they’re fair, reasonable and presented in a concise way that’s easier to understand.

Otherwise, they may find themselves the victims of more lawsuits and challenges as the regulatory landscape continues to shift over time.