An Australian gambler is suing the BetEasy bookmaker for almost $1.2 million in unpaid winnings.

Renee Bell filed the complaint with the Supreme Court in April. Bell claims BetEasy acted in a deceptive and misleading manner by failing to inform her of the maximum payout.

BetEasy accepted $500 worth of multi-bets on various sporting events that had a potential payout of $1,443,695.50. Bell thought all her Christmases had come at once when several of her selections romped home in May 2018.

A $100 five-leg bet returned $1,267,748.80 with another four $100 bets returning $182,447.10. Bell believed she’d won $1,443,695.90. Bell thought wrong because BetEasy awarded her “only” $250,000.

“The maximum payout for a multi-bet for a racing/sports or combination of both is $250,000.” Those are the words clearly stated in BetEasy’s terms and conditions. BetEasy also states it is its customer’s responsibility to adjust their stakes accordingly to its limits.

Bell and her layers argued BetEasy was happy to accept the full amount of Bell’s stake without any limitation. The betting slip clearly shows the $1.44 million in potential winnings.

The lawsuit aims to recover the $1,193,195.90 payout plus interest and damages under Australian Consumer Law.

Bell Accuses Crown Resorts Employee Of Creating BetEasy Account

The court case is in progress and has taken a slightly bizarre twist. Bell claims she didn’t open her BetEasy account and accused an unknown Crown Resorts employee of opening one in her name.

She believes this because she received an email about her parlay winnings three days after becoming a Crown Resorts Signature Club member. You may recall BetEasy used to be called CrownBet. Bell argues the only way the bet could have been placed was if someone at Crown used her identity.

Now Bell claims she is owed the full payouts even if she didn’t place the winning bet.

The court heard Bell didn’t agree to BetEasy’s terms and conditions when she signed with Crown’s Signature Club. No terms and conditions of limiting payouts were brought to her attention at any point.

BetEasy filed documents countering Bell’s claims of a lack of knowledge. They state that signing up for their services signals a customer agrees to the terms and conditions.

The Australian Supreme Court scheduled a full hearing for November 2020.

Could This Have Happened?

The Supreme Court will weigh up both sides of the story before coming to its final decision. We wouldn’t like to be in that hearing because it looks like a case of one person’s word against another’s.

Bell’s story of never signing up for a BetEasy account could be possible. CrownBet became BetEasy in 2018 when The Stars Group purchased an 80% stake in the company. The Stars Group bought the remaining 20% last year.

A Crown employee had access to Bell’s personal details and could have used that to place the offending bet. But, and it’s a big but, surely that makes the bet invalid because it wsn’t placed by the account holder? The Supreme Court should rule in favour of BetEasy if this is the case.

What is more likely is Bell was offered a BetEasy account when she became a Crown VIP. She then placed the bets and miraculously won $1.44 million.

BetEasy’s software should have displayed the maximum winnings of $250,000. That’s the only fact that is certain in this case, the only thing concrete. BetEasy mislead Bell and possibly countless other punters, into believing they can win much more than is actually possible. That in itself needs addressing and fixing.

This isn’t an easy open and shut case. Both parties appear to be in the wrong to some degree. It will be unsurprising to see this matter settled before the November hearing. Simply because BetEasy won’t want its practices gone through with a fine-toothed comb. Expect some changes to the BetEasy parlay software sooner rather than later too.