Maltese Court Upholds Betway’s Decision in $32K Gambling Winnings Dispute

Background of the Dispute

A Maltese court has ruled in favor of the online gambling operator Betway in a dispute involving a player’s attempt to claim winnings of approximately EUR 30,279 (around $32,600). The issue arose after the player used a payment account that belonged to his cousin and was found connected to multiple self-excluded gambling accounts, which violated Betway’s terms.

Details of the Case

The case involved Reegan Tharmalingam, who registered an account with Betway under the username “ReeganR” in May 2021. He deposited funds using a Neteller account that was registered in his cousin Sansigithan Ravichandran’s name. Betway’s terms and conditions clearly require players to use payment methods in their own name and prohibit the creation of multiple accounts.

Betway’s fraud department revealed that the “ReeganR” account was linked to three other accounts, including “Reegan1982” and “ut1627,” both of which had self-excluded themselves in April 2021. These accounts shared identical mobile numbers, bank information, and password identifiers. Initially, the player withdrew EUR 3,124 (around $3,360) without problems, but later requests to withdraw additional funds amounting to EUR 30,000 (approximately $32,300) triggered a risk review.

During court proceedings, Tharmalingam admitted he had not read Betway’s terms and conditions, although he had accepted them when opening his account. Ultimately, the court ruled that Betway was within its rights to withhold the disputed winnings. However, as a goodwill gesture, Betway refunded EUR 18,721 (nearly $20,100) in deposits to the player.

Judicial Commentary and Wider Implications

Judge Giovanni Grixti delivered the verdict on November 6, stating that the player’s admitted actions were clear violations of the contractual terms binding all Betway users. The judge rejected claims that Betway should have detected these breaches sooner, explaining that with a large volume of players, occasional irregularities are expected and do not relieve players from their contractual obligations.

The court also stressed the importance of self-exclusion policies, which are designed to safeguard players and promote responsible gambling practices. This ruling affirms that gambling operators are justified in enforcing terms that prevent individuals from circumventing these protective measures.