The Commission has recently found licensees using terms that are potentially unfair and, in some cases, give them undue discretion to decide if and how they are applied. Examples include:

• terms that allow licensees to confiscate customers’ un-staked deposits


• terms regarding treatment of customers’ funds where a licensee believes there has been illegal, irregular or fraudulent play


• promotions for online games that have terms entitling a licensee to void real money winnings if a customer inadvertently breaks staking rules


• terms that unfairly permit licensees to reduce potential winnings on open bets.

We are also aware of the following:

• terms and conditions that are difficult to understand


• welcome bonus offers and wagering requirements which may encourage excessive play.

What licensees should do now

In light of this, licensees should:

• review their terms and conditions to make sure they comply with relevant consumer protection laws, the LCCP and take into account the Commission’s updated guidance. If asked, it is an LCCP requirement that licensees must be able to provide evidence to show how their terms are fair and transparent


• licensees should review their offers, particularly welcome bonus offers or those with wagering requirements. The LCCP requires rewards and bonuses to be constructed in a way that is socially responsible. Although it is common practice to attach terms and conditions to bonus offers, the Commission does not expect conditions, such as wagering requirements, to encourage excessive play.

If a consumer is not satisfied with a licensee’s response to their complaint, they can refer it to an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) provider. We expect ADR providers to adjudicate on contractual and transactional disputes between consumers and licensees. Our guidance to ADR providers (opens in a new tab) is clear: they must consider consumer protection legislation when looking at disputes. This includes, for example, considering whether a contract term is fair.