3 days ago
Gambling company offered Melbourne man $25,000 on condition he withdraw complaint to regulator and be liable for ‘adverse media'
A Melbourne man says he was offered $25,000 by a gambling company on the condition that he withdraw a complaint to an industry regulator, agree to confidentiality provisions and indemnify them, including against adverse media coverage.
Gordon Burns, 23, argues his 2022 betting frenzy with two bookmakers showed 'consistent patterns of addictive behaviour' and alleges that no one from either company checked on him to minimise gambling harm.
Burns, who lodged a complaint with the Northern Territory Racing and Wagering Commission (NTRWC), which regulates most online gambling companies in Australia, also alleges no one checked the source of his funds.
The commission requires bookmakers 'identify and respond to red flag behaviours' that indicate someone may be experiencing gambling harm. These red flags include someone increasing the amount and frequency of their deposits.
Burns was 21 at the time of gambling with BetNation and BetDeluxe. Transaction data shows he made deposits of $10,000, $25,000 and $35,000 within eight minutes. Later the same day, he lodged three deposits worth $120,000 during a 17-minute period.
Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email
Shortly after lodging his complaint with the regulator in mid-March 2024, Burns received a WhatsApp message from a representative of the two bookmakers' parent company, Amused Group.
'Are you free for a brief call now?' the message said. 'I wanted to discuss a settlement for your account.'
When Burns asked how the representative had found his phone number, he was told someone at the regulator had shared it with them.
BetDeluxe and BetNation were acquired by Amused Group in March 2023, a few months after the gambling in question, and Amused have said they did not acquire Burns' account or 'any liabilities associated with the conduct of the business before that date'.
After the acquisition, Burns said he received an offer from Amused Group to settle his claims for $25,000, honouring an offer made to him under the previous owner, on the condition that he withdraw his complaint by the end of the day and agree to make no further complaints to the NTRWC or any other regulator.
He also said the gambling company had told him that if the complaint proceeded with the regulator, the agreement and the financial offer would be void.
He said he was told he would need to provide the company with an indemnity from all claims in relation to the subject of the dispute, including any adverse media.
An Amused Group spokesperson did not comment on the specific allegations made by Burns nor the offer made to him 'due to confidentiality and privacy considerations'. But they said the group 'takes all customer complaints seriously and handles each matter in accordance with applicable laws'.
The Consumer Action Law Centre's chief executive, Stephanie Tonkin, said conditional settlement negotiations were common in many industries but expressed concern that they could be used to 'silence victims and avoid scrutiny'.
'In my view, [they] should be used in limited circumstances and should not prevent a complaint to a regulator,' Tonkin said.
Lauren Levin, who has spent decades researching the harms of the gambling industry, said 'in the majority of cases, the offer of quick cash proves overwhelming for people in difficult financial circumstances'.
The Amused Group spokesperson said 'confidentiality provisions are standard in many industries to provide finality and protect the privacy of all parties to a dispute'.
Sign up to Breaking News Australia
Get the most important news as it breaks
after newsletter promotion
'They are not intended to silence individuals or avoid regulatory oversight,' the spokesperson said. 'In fact, such provisions often facilitate the resolution of complex and sensitive matters without the need for prolonged adversarial processes.
'Amused Group remains committed to transparency, accountability, and the fair treatment of all our customers.'
The company also said it was 'committed to responsible gambling and customer wellbeing' and had 'a dedicated team, systems, and policies in place to help identify and respond to potential indicators of gambling harm'.
'We have invested heavily in responsible gambling measures, and believe our commitment in this area would compare favourably to any other operator in the market,' the Amused spokesperson said.
Burns argues BetNation and BetDeluxe should have done more to protect him and that he did not withdraw his complaint because he wanted the regulator to investigate why, in his view, 'so many red flags were ignored'.
'The $25,000 might help me, but it is not going to help the next person that has suffered,' Burns said.
Burns did not accept the settlement offer and says his complaint is still before the NTRWC.
In a statement, a spokesperson for the regulator said it understood settlements were commonly offered by gambling companies. But they said this did not automatically prevent it from investigating serious allegations.
'When the commission receives advice that a complaint is withdrawn due to the parties reaching a confidential settlement concerning the complaint, the commission undertakes an assessment to determine whether the subject matter of the complaint is sufficiently serious to warrant investigation and disciplinary action,' the spokesperson said.
'There are a number of examples where the commission has disciplined a licensee after a complaint has been withdrawn.'
