| Topic List | Page List: 1 |
|---|---|
| Topic | Fan duel refuses to pay on 138k bet claiming it was computer glitch |
| Darth_CiD 09/20/18 7:08:35 AM #9: | Golden Road posted... The Article posted...bet $600 to win $100 You get the 600 back as well, so it's a winning of 100, returns of 700.ParanoidObsessive posted... There's wiggle room there, because it's been repeatedly established legally that ToSes and EULAs aren't strictly legally binding, The distinction is usually how the ToS is presented, if it is posted on some board somewhere where you actively have to seek it out to read then it's absolutely useless, nobody can guarantee that the person even knows it exist, let alone has read it and agreed to it. If they are given a copy and have to indicate they have read and agreed to it before they can continue, then it is irrelevant whether they actually did read it as they said they did. After reading the article it is unclear whether the bets were placed otc or on some sort of terminal/online, if it's the latter than the chance they indicated agreement goes up, especially if there is some sort of membership/loyalty scheme involved where they 100% would have had to agree to the terms before signing up. ParanoidObsessive posted... and they can't force someone to give up legal rights to which they are normally entitled. True, even if you do agree to it in the ToS, but it generally has to specify in the relevent laws (something along the lines of the quoted price is final) which i am actually having trouble finding NJ sports betting specific laws, which means they probably just folded it in under other general gambling laws, which isn't a good thing as that leaves room for ambiguity and interpretation. --- Every decision in my life is based solely on which option I think will be funnier in the long run. ... Copied to Clipboard! |
| Topic List | Page List: 1 |