Gambler received service he paid for

Morgan opened an account with online betting company XYZ Ltd and placed a $6,000 bet, which was accepted. He gave XYZ Ltd his credit card details to charge his credit card. A few days later he received a message from XYZ Ltd asking him to verify his identity. His account access was restricted until it could successfully do this.
September 2013

Morgan contacted his bank to retrieve the payment. His bank initiated a chargeback and the bank contacted XYZ Ltd, which provided evidence Morgan had authorised the disputed payment. For this reason, the bank was unable to charge back the transaction. Morgan did not accept this and complained to us.

Our investigation

We were able to consider only his bank’s involvement in the transaction because XYZ Ltd wasn’t a member of our scheme. We found that because Morgan had given his credit card details to the company, he had authorised the payment and his bank was obliged to follow his instruction.

We then sought to establish whether the bank should have charged back the payment. We referred to international credit card operating rules, which detail circumstances in which transactions can be charged back. One is where goods or services aren’t supplied or don’t perform as promised. We considered Morgan’s payment was for placing a bet, not buying an XYZ Ltd account. The bet was placed successfully, so Morgan had received the service he had paid for.

Print this page