Shutterstock
Generally speaking, no, they can’t. Before they could, their refusal must meet legitimate conditions, especially so in France.
The French gambling regulator announced that the organization had received complaints from players stating that some gambling operators refused to take their bets. Based on the French Code of Consumption Article L. 121-11, gambling operators can only refuse bets if the situation meets some criteria.
For example, an online casino can refuse a bet from an underage person. Another reason is self-exclusion. It is a situation where a player has asked not to be allowed to bet because he has a gambling problem. Gambling operators may also refuse bets from people playing excessively.
Casino operators or sports betting facilities who violate this mandate can receive a fine of up to €1,500, provided that the refusal does not belong to any of these categories. Those who repeat the offence will pay €3,000. According to the French Code of Consumption, a bet refusal is a type of deceptive marketing. If this is the case, those that violate this law could do jail time of up to two years plus pay a fine of €300,000.
The issue arises from a mediation where the ANJ has to get involved. There were also complaints filed to the National Gaming Authority where gambling operators refused the bets of many players.
The issue is primarily happening in the sports betting world. It happens in two ways. First, some betting operators refuse the total bet, and some only refuse part of the bet. This practice is not fair, and it has led to many concerns in the industry. Because of the rampant practice, 17% of the complaints filed in the Games Mediator are due to this very reason. As such, the ANJ had to intervene and rule in favour of the players.
ANJ stated that any operator that offers betting odds to the public could not refuse or limit bets. It applies to all players who accept the offer. Of course, the operator could refuse bets if the players are violating a law. The practice, according to ANJ, is equivalent to refusing to provide service to a customer. The refusal is punishable by an offence that belongs to the fifth class. The act of denial is an expression of unfair commercial practice.
ANJ also states that if a bettor’s stake is legitimate, yet the operator refuses, it is considered a deceptive commercial practice. This policy is not a blanket rule. For example, some operators are within the bounds of the law to refuse bets.
Here are some legitimate reasons they can refuse bets:
- Prevention of excessive gambling;
- Prevention of pathological gambling;
- Protection of minors;
- Fraudulent transactions;
- Suspicious of money laundering;
- Suspicion of financing for terrorism.
If operators persist in violating the ANJ’s ruling, they will expose themselves to legal proceedings. These complaints will move forward to the Sanctions Commission of the National Gaming Authority.
There is no clear indication as to why gambling faculties refuse bets. One possible reason is that the players keep on winning. It is not unusual for a gambling facility or agency to deny bettors if this is happening.
In many land-based casinos, the operator can tell you to stop playing if you keep on winning. For example, it often happens in blackjack when a player counts cards.
A bet refusal online is not entirely illegal. However, many anti-gambling advocates say that this behaviour is unethical. They are also clamouring for a change in laws, saying that this practice must become illegal.
According to Tim Costello, the spokesperson of Alliance for Gambling Reform, sports betting companies are predatory and lack morals. He also said that gambling operators had a real-time list of who was winning. One customer who went by the name of Matthew said that he had been gambling on horses for years. He had been restricted on many sites.
There is speculation in the gambling community that if you keep on winning, a gambling company deems you as unprofitable. Because of this, they will ban you from the site. Bettors provided screenshots of betting receipts from two different accounts but on the same race to prove these accusations. One bet is approved, while the bet for the “restricted” account was denied. On the denied bet, the betting screen merely showed that there was an error.
On another occasion, a bettor succeeded in placing a bet from an unrestricted account. However, he got an error from his restricted account. The error indicated that he was betting more than what was allowed, even if it was the same exact bet he was placing.
One solution that gambling advocates recommend is to have a minimum bet and win. In this solution, bettors must bet on odds that have a minimum winning amount. As such, the playing field is even, and the sports betting company has no reason to deny a bet.
Some states and countries have already adopted this method, but it is not yet universal. Also, some betting companies have found ways to get around this law. They reduce the betting odds, and players do not find these odds favourable.
