Australian online sportsbetting firm BetEasy Proprietary Limited is reportedly being sued by a disgruntled customer following its alleged refusal to pay out the full win from a parlay wager.
According to a report from The Sydney Morning Herald newspaper, the Melbourne-headquartered bookmaker runs the online sportsbetting platform at BetEasy.com.au and had accepted the multi-bet from punter Renee Bell in May of 2018. This five-stage gamble had purportedly involved an aggregate stake of about $60 involving four horseracing events as well as an upcoming match from the Australian Football League (AFL).
Significant prize:
The newspaper reported that Bell had also used BetEasy.com.au to lodge four individual identically-staked wagers concerning the same football match but featuring differing combinations of the three horses to place and one to win. Absolute success with these separate flutters when combined with the parlay bet was to have purportedly seen Bell walk away with an aggregate pay-day worth just over $977,550.
Ceiling condition:
However, Bell has now reportedly filed an action against BetEasy Proprietary Limited in the Supreme Court of Victoria after she was awarded with only a little over $150,000 despite every one of her predictions coming to pass. She purportedly claims that the bookmaker had been deceptive and misleading in accepting her wagers without clearly explaining that this amount represented its maximum allowable pay-out.
The Sydney Morning Herald reported that Bell is now seeking a judgement for almost $717,000 plus interest but may moreover consider asking for recompense under the Competition and Consumer Act of 2010.
Sly stipulation:
The newspaper reported that the terms and conditions section of BetEasy.com.au do explain that ‘the maximum pay-out for a multi-bet for a racing/sports or a combination of both is AU$250,000’ and that it is the responsibility of the customer ‘to ensure you stake accordingly to the limits’. Nevertheless, Bell’s legal team is purportedly set to argue that BetEasy Proprietary Limited had accepted the sportsbetting wagers without making its client aware of this provision.
Reportedly reads Bell’s lawsuit…
“To the contrary, [BetEasy Proprietary Limited] accepted the full amount of the plaintiff’s stake for each bet without any deduction or limitation and recorded the plaintiff’s bet as returning the full amount of potential winnings. [BetEasy Proprietary Limited] ought to have paid out to the plaintiff the amount of AU$1,443,695 in respect of the bets but only paid the amount of AU$250,000 and the plaintiff claims the difference of AU$1,193,195 as a debt.”
