Poll of the Day > Fan duel refuses to pay on 138k bet claiming it was computer glitch

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/fanduel-refuses-pay-138000-winnings-nfl-gambling-glitch-170639388.html

do you think this guy will win his lawsuit?
---

I'm pretty sure the precedent has been set with a glitched slot machine and they have to pay him.

If you are simply playing the game a glitch does not absolve the gaming host.

really? that one woman won her lawsuit?
---

If they have it in their ToS that computer error isn't valid for the bet (which the article says they do) then no he won't win. Also, they paid everyone what the actual rate was supposed to be.

The Article posted...

bet $600 to win $100

I guess they have to make money somehow XD
---

ASlaveObeys posted...

If they have it in their ToS that computer error isn't valid for the bet (which the article says they do) then no he won't win.

There's wiggle room there, because it's been repeatedly established legally that ToSes and EULAs aren't strictly legally binding, and they can't force someone to give up legal rights to which they are normally entitled.

Not saying he'd definitely win, but there's more than enough chance that a given court would find in his favor.


---

do you remember that one woman with the slot machine glitch with the like, 5 mil. payout? i think she didn't win
---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

ASlaveObeys posted...

If they have it in their ToS that computer error isn't valid for the bet (which the article says they do) then no he won't win.

There's wiggle room there, because it's been repeatedly established legally that ToSes and EULAs aren't strictly legally binding, and they can't force someone to give up legal rights to which they are normally entitled.

Not saying he'd definitely win, but there's more than enough chance that a given court would find in his favor.

Not a chance in hell
---

Golden Road posted...

The Article posted...

bet $600 to win $100

I guess they have to make money somehow XD

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.
---