BetAtHome - New T&C - Did you ever read about such a term?

[lonnie55]

BetAtHome just released new T&C which must be accepted by the customer when he signs up (there is no option to reject).

There is one point which is really stunning:

"7. The customer confirms that he does not hold more than one account with <code style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-size: 11px; background: transparent; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-family: inherit; white-space: nowrap; color: rgb(34, 49, 57);">bet-at-home</code> and that he has not held an account with <code style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-size: 11px; background: transparent; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-family: inherit; white-space: nowrap; color: rgb(34, 49, 57);">bet-at-home</code> or any other online gaming operator which was closed or locked. "

I mean, what?

Everybody (I mean EVERYBODY!) who is betting at softbookies for a while will have an account getting locked or closed at some point. It's the most normal thing in the world because it's a common method softbookies do use when they don't want to pay their customers.

So from now on everybody who had ever an account which had been closed at any other online gaming operator is breaching bah's T&C which basically legitimates them to confiscate winnings (and deposits).

Wow.

By this term bah is definitely adding a new quality to the business. Moreover it assumes there must exist a blacklist within the industry that files customers who ever had an account got closed.

I have a feeling the whole industry (exchanges and Asian bookies excepted) is gradually going downhill. Even big players try to avoid and/or punish winning players at all costs.

[Grumsi]

Can you talk with them on live chat about this term and what exactly does it mean? And could you please show as a screenshot of that chat, if that would be possible? Thank you.

[SBR Forum]

Good questions. This is one of those rules that are meant as a deterrent and which aren't applied liberally. 95% of players have nothing to fret over. If you were shown the door for being a sharp player, it's not as if you would be on a blacklist where your play is automatically null elsewhere. However if there were elements of fraud, industry bookmakers do share records.

[lonnie55]

Can you talk with them on live chat about this term and what exactly does it mean? And could you please show as a screenshot of that chat, if that would be possible? Thank you.

I could do but I would do it in my native language (German) to avoid misunderstandings.

[lonnie55]

A user in German-speaking betting forum wettforum.info has already contacted the chat support: https://www.wettforum.info/forum/bookie-section/buchmachertests/4641924-bet-at-home-agb-%C3%A4nderung?p=4642208#post4642208

It's post #7

You can easily get the point by using google translate.

[Grumsi]

A question of what is the purpose of this clause if BAT can not see if you were blocked by other gambling sites was not answered clearly or I just got lost in translation. So what is the purpose of that clause if they can not see if you were blocked by other sites?

[lonnie55]

A question of what is the purpose of this clause if BAT can not see if you were blocked by other gambling sites was not answered clearly or I just got lost in translation. So what is the purpose of that clause if they can not see if you were blocked by other sites?

They are questioning this clause by themselves right now. That's rather what the chat operator admitted.

[Kaabee]

It doesn't specify who closed the account. Lots of players close their own accounts for a variety of reasons.

[piterp]

It is just another excuse from them for make stealing money more easy