CMA launches new enforcement action against withdrawal restrictions and dormancy fees
Competition watchdog has written to a “number of firms” about the issue and warned others to consider their T&Cs
The CMA has launched enforcement action against “a number” of online gambling firms for putting “unfair obstacles” in the way of people trying to withdraw their funds.
Specifically the CMA said yesterday it was concerned about “unreasonably low” limits on withdrawals, “arbitrary short deadlines” on the time customers have to verify their identity, and dormancy terms that allow funds to be confiscated.
The watchdog has written to operators involved, although would not comment about the identity of the firms involved when contacted by EGR.
Previous enforcement from the CMA saw Ladbrokes, William Hill and Playtech’s PT Entertainment commit to improving their bonusing terms and conditions, although the shift in focus to withdrawals was flagged at the time.
UK Gambling Commission programme director Ian Angus said the regulator supported the CMQA action.
“Gambling firms should not be placing unreasonable restrictions on when and how consumers can withdraw money from their online gambling accounts,” Angus said.
“While the CMA continues its enquiry, we expect all online operators to look closely at the terms and practices they have in place and consider if they are fair on their customers.”
Sky Bet’s terms and conditions came under fire this week in a Guardian article where punters’ right’s campaigners said they thought they were “beyond the law”.
The Remote Gambling Association (RGA) said some of the issues highlighted by the CMA were down to delays caused by anti-fraud and anti-money laundering controls.
“We are collectively seeking ways to better explain that to customers,” the association said.
“However, the CMA has identified a number of cases that are not justified on these grounds. Where they have deemed that customers have not been dealt with fairly then it must be right for them to take action. Where common themes or failings emerge then we will make every effort to disseminate those across the sector so that the same mistakes are not repeated.”
Richard Williams, a partner at Joelson noted the dormancy fee issue would be of particular concern to operators, explaining: “On the one hand you can’t have dormant balances hanging around indefinitely, but on the other, those funds belong to customers not operators.
“Even though T&Cs contain these terms as a fall-back position, they are not always implemented in practice. However, T&Cs will need to be revised to take account of these enforcement action points and other measures which make it difficult for customers to withdraw funds will need to cease ASAP.”