Comparasino MD Martyn Hannah delves into the topic of operator terms and conditions, considering whether companies are doing enough to build trust with their players.
Regardless of who emerges victorious in the court battle between Paddy Power and a disgruntled customer over an alleged unpaid £1m jackpot win, the fact the case is taking place in the first place shows operators are still wide of the mark when it comes to building trust with players.
If you’ve missed it, Paddy Power is facing a legal tussle with a player who alleges she has been unfairly denied a £1m jackpot win. Instead, the player’s account was credited with just over £20,000 after the operator said a “mismatch” had occurred.
The crux of the case comes down to a discrepancy between the result determined on Paddy Power’s central computer and the prize displayed to the player, with the operator’s legal team describing what the player sees on their screen as irrelevant “wallpaper”.
Following her complaint, Paddy Power showed the player a 45-page rulebook of terms and conditions to justify its decision to not pay the “monster” £1,097,132.71 jackpot she was told she had won.
“Online casinos are simply not being transparent with players”
In particular, Paddy Power pointed to the clause stating the player “fully accepts and agrees that random number generator software will determine all outcomes of the game” and that Paddy Power “will not be liable” for payouts offered as a result of “systems or communication error”.
As the case progresses, both sides will trawl through the operator’s terms and conditions, with each looking to interpret them in favour of their side of the argument. But for me, this highlights the real – and much bigger issue – at hand.
Online casinos are simply not being transparent with players – what other entertainment option comes with a 45-page rule book that even barristers and legal teams can interpret differently? – and this is leading to trust issues.
The systems and software behind online casinos are incredibly complex, but surely, it’s the responsibility of the operator to ensure those systems are in check. In the event of a glitch, it’s hard to see an argument for why the consumer should bear the brunt of this.
And to describe what the player sees as “wallpaper” does little to foster trust between consumers and online casino brands – trust remains a huge concern for players when deciding where to play even when looking to sign up with a household name brand.
“they are incredibly difficult to digest and understand”
I’m not saying that operators don’t have a right to enforce their terms and conditions and that players shouldn’t be familiar with them before playing.
But what I am saying is cases like this show just how complex terms and conditions are, and ultimately, the disputes that come from any challenges to them are bad optics and have the potential for significant brand and reputational damage.
In my role at Comparasino I have read my fair share of operator T&Cs and they can be incredibly difficult to digest and understand, with lots of long legal-speak.
I often think that it would be almost impossible for a casual player to get their head around – would they even know what a remote game server is or how a wagering requirement works? – and this is why we always break out significant T&Cs and put them into layman’s terms.
T&Cs will always be a part of purchasing a product or engaging with a service, but this industry needs to do more to simplify the rules of engagement and ensure customers really do understand what they are agreeing to.
Some operators are doing this. Heart Bingo is worth a mention here, especially when it comes to the T&Cs for its welcome bonuses and ongoing promotions, but it is very much in the minority.
I think operators need to take pause and just think about what players are actually agreeing to when they sign up and play, and the reality around their understanding of T&Cs.
“players still don’t trust online casino brands”
T&Cs cover everything from the bonuses they accept to the payment methods they use, to how their data is stored and used and even the degree to which their funds are protected, as well as the technology used to generate the results of the games they play and the wins they receive.
That Paddy Power’s terms and conditions span a 45-page document really says it all for me.
Do I have a solution to this problem? Yes and no. I don’t operate an online casino, so I don’t understand the legal position operators are in and to what degree such comprehensive and complex T&Cs are necessary.
But what I do know is that players still don’t trust online casino brands and often become frustrated, annoyed and even angry when they don’t receive the experience they expect. This is certainly the case when it comes to bonuses, wins and payouts – this is why we’ve seen a huge spike in players looking for casinos with instant payouts.
It might be that operators really can’t change their terms and conditions, but if that is the case, they need to do more to educate players as to what they actually contain and what impact it has on them.
Forfeiting bonus winnings or refusing a payout because of a technical glitch and then pointing to a clause buried deep in the operator’s terms and conditions essentially puts the onus back on the player and for me at least, that equates to poor customer service.
I think if operators could be more transparent about their terms and conditions, simplify them where possible, educate players where complexities must exist and really ask if the clause is fair, they would be able to foster much deeper trust.
In return, these players would pay them back with their loyalty – something that is incredibly hard to achieve in this industry.
