The ANJ and the Gaming Mediator have been questioned on several occasions by players about the validity of certain clauses stipulated in the General Conditions of Use (GCU) and in the gaming and betting rules of authorized online operators. The question of the validity of such clauses could also be raised before the courts. In this context, the ANJ has decided to carry out a review of the contractual documentation of all authorized online operators. This review was carried out with the aim of achieving a satisfactory level of legal compliance, before any subsequent checks. It does not constitute validation by the ANJ. The operators, in fact, remain solely responsible for drafting the contractual documentation, which is not intended to be standardized.
The main results and areas for improvement for the benefit of the players
This global review and the exchanges that took place on this occasion between the ANJ services and the operators led to the deletion of various clauses, some of which were illegitimate due to their abusive nature, others were ambiguous and therefore likely to lead to difficulties of implementation. These include the following clauses:
- clauses that exclude the operators' responsibility in whole or in part, unduly limiting players' right to compensation in the event of a violation by the gaming operator;
- clauses which hinder the exercise of legal actions by consumers, such as those which require the player, in the event of a dispute, to appeal to a judge other than that of his domicile. Regardless of where the operator's registered office is located, even when abroad, the player must be able to appeal to the court of his domicile;
- clauses which limit the means of proof available to consumers;
- clauses which reduce the duration of the prescription, during which the player can assert his rights against the operator, which, in principle, is five years;
- clauses that allow the operator to limit players' bets without having to justify a legitimate reason. In this regard, the ANJ reminded operators that a restriction of betting without a legitimate reason may constitute a refusal to provide services prohibited by the Consumer Code, or even, depending on the circumstances, a deceptive commercial practice. In this regard, the legitimate reason, which must always be able to be demonstrated by the operator, can be based in particular on: - the prevention of excessive or pathological gambling and the protection of minors; - the fight against fraud, money laundering and terrorist financing;- or the financial exposure of the professional.
- clauses likely to hinder the players' predictions, such as those that could lead, in the event of a tie or equal ranking, the payment by the player of a sum lower than his initial bet (payment of the bet at odds lower than 1).
At the end of this review, the operators corrected most of the clauses thus identified.
