Bet365 NJ Ordered to Pay $500,000 for Adjusted Odds Violation

The New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement (DGE) is requiring Bet365 to pay out $519,323.32 for 199 winning wagers where the company altered odds without the agency's approval. These changes were made on 12 different dates between December 25, 2020, and November 18, 2022.

Unlike many states, New Jersey mandates operators to obtain approval before changing odds. Notably, Bet365 must compensate the bettors directly rather than pay a fine to the DGE. Typically, fines are imposed when a sportsbook violates rules in New Jersey and other states.

Bet365 ranks among the top five operators in terms of gaming revenue in New Jersey. The DGE has given Bet365 10 days from the letter date to reimburse the affected bettors.

According to a July 22 letter, Bet365 altered the odds on events after they were posted. The DGE states that Bet365 believed it could “unilaterally revise the odds that had already been offered on wagers for these events because they were posted in an ‘obvious error’.” The DGE disagreed.

“Bet365 failed, in all instances, to recognize that although Bet365’s house rules were approved by the division, it was with an express statement and caveat that Bet365 was prohibited from voiding any wager without prior division approval.”

The DGE identified technology issues as the root cause of the problem, raising concerns about Bet365’s integrity.

“The failure of Bet365’s internal software coupled with its manual trading errors caused its system to be unable to ensure the accuracy of its data feeds,” interim director Mary Jo Flaherty wrote. “These failures are both problematic as to Bet365’s ability to conduct online gaming and the integrity and reliability of its operational systems and therefore unacceptable as they resulted in misleading wagering information that was relied upon by its patrons and ultimately led to incorrect payouts for numerous patrons.”

The DGE has given Bet365 20 days from the letter date to provide a plan to rectify the issues. Flaherty emphasized that “no further such violations related to the unilateral voiding of wagers will be tolerated.”