A Nevada player’s attempt to dispute gambling losses has reached a dead end after the local regulator rejected his appeal. The bettor, Kevin O’Brien, claimed that a software glitch within the Caesars Sportsbook placed two irregular bets without his input, leading to significant losses. He appealed to the Nevada Gaming Control Board, seeking compensation from operator William Hill.
The Bettor Had Little Concrete Evidence
Despite O’Brien’s claims, the NGCB had some reservations regarding his claims. However, the regulator conceded that the two wagers did not match his betting patterns. While O’Brien’s usual wagers averaged around $45, one of the two bets was an extremely ambitious $999 five-leg parlay with a potential payout of $9,275, while the other was a $9 three-leg parlay that would have paid out $56.
O’Brien’s phone was unlocked via facial recognition, making it highly unlikely that another person placed the suspicious wagers. However, the bettor acknowledged that he lacked concrete evidence to back his claims. Location data confirmed that the device did not leave his vicinity, reducing the possibility of external tampering.
A Caesars Digital official confirmed that the company had detected no irregularities in O’Brien’s account and that the company had not learned of his predicament until the events tied to the wagers had concluded. According to the representative, O’Brien had nearly four hours to report the issue. They noted that if the issue had been brought up in time, the wagers would likely have been cancelled and the funds returned.
Disputes Must Be Filed Before the Game Is Over
The NGCB concluded that O’Brien was fully responsible for his losses, as he did not attempt to resolve the issue until the events were over. The regulator used this opportunity to warn other bettors that disputing wagers after they have already been lost will not be successful. Any such claims must be made before the game is over.
This is not the first such incident surrounding William Hill. In March, a fault in the Jackpot Drop feature caused many players to receive major wins, some in the hundreds of thousands. Several even managed to withdraw their balances. The operator offered 11% to customers who returned the funds, though a few have refused and are threatening legal action.
As for O’Brien, the NGCB’s decision was to be expected. Ruling in favor of the customer after the event was concluded could set a bad precedent, potentially swarming the regulator with disputes from disgruntled bettors. However, the two incidents have made it clear that gambling software is not perfect and players should employ common sense when dealing with any irregularities.