-
-
The advertising was definitely misleading (as almost all betting adverts are) but if I remember correctly the terms and conditions were pretty clear in regards to the turnover requirements and how the offer worked. I benefited from their sign up offer in 2010 or 2011 and was always aware of how it was structured. I don't enjoy defending bet365 but if someone does not take three minutes to read through a couple of paragraphs outlining exactly how the offer works before they sign up and make a deposit then I don't have much sympathy for them.
Doesn't seem like a great week for bet365 given this and the betcall ban: http://www.smh.com.au/business/tom-w...10-gpg4du.htmlComment -
Not sure if this is good or bad.
Seems a bit like posturing for the federal govt to take away state gambling licensing rights.
Not sure whats going on federally in Australia but it seems like someone in there suddenly has an interest or lobby group they want to help. Talk of govt blocking offshore gambling sites keeps coming up lately.
It's also interesting that a judge sees it as misleading and deceptive behaviour to required rollover with a time limit and rules to make players bet on higher risk odds..Comment -
Should this action, also against Bet365, be successful it will hopefully establish a worldwide legal precedent.
Comment -
Australia is always weird with their rules. They want the fine print in the ad creative I guess. But thats a drop in the bucket for 365. It could have been a lot more in relation to the scope of the ad campaign.Comment -
Another thing to add is 'click to call' live betting on William hill, Sportsbet, Bet365 and Unibet will be banned in 28 days time. ( i know its nothing to do with the topic but is Australian related)Comment
