Taichi Tech fined over unfair T&Cs

Taichi Tech fined over unfair T&Cs - Banner
Simon Wooldridge
by Simon Wooldridge Last updated:

Unfair terms and conditions (T&Cs) have landed Taichi Tech Limited (trading as Fafabet) in some very hot water with the Gambling Commission – hot water to the tune of a £170,000 fine.

The offending words

"Fafabet have the right at their own discretion to close accounts or forfeit winnings." 

Not difficult to see why this would ruffle feathers at Gambling Commission HQ.  As well as being clear and easy to understand, T&Cs must be fair. Fafabet's wording shows very little in the way of respect for customers.

Gambling Commission comment

In a statement about the case, John Pierce, Director of Enforcement and Intelligence, Gambling Commission said: 

“We expect all operators – regardless of their size or customer base – to comply with consumer protection legislation and ensure their terms and conditions meet regulatory standards. Licensed operators must ensure their terms are clear, fair, and transparent, so customers fully understand what to expect.”

The Commission also said:

"The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA) is the general consumer protection legislation, and it is explicitly referenced within the Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice (LCCP) that gambling companies must follow. The LCCP requires licensees to ensure that their terms and practices are fair, clear, and do not breach consumer protection law." 

It didn’t stop there

The Commission also found issues concerning social responsibility, consumer protection, risk management and anti-money laundering, specifically:

  • Lack of intervention or even any follow-up after safer gambling emails were sent but not acknowledged by the customer while concerning behaviours continued
  • Lack of intervention when customers exhibited potentially harmful behaviours such as gambling large sums in very short period of time

 From here

Taichi Tech Limited accepted the Commission’s findings – in essence that the company fell short of expected industry standards. They were instructed to commission an independent third-party to oversee regulatory compliance on an ongoing basis.