William Hill Casino Club and The Daily Star: tacky advertising and a vastly misleading jackpot winner claim

William Hill Casino Club is a Playtech-powered casino licensed to UK bookmaker William Hill and operated in Gibraltar under the Gibraltar Regulatory Authority.


I recently came across this apparent news report, "Swine flu victim wins �100,000 at William Hill's Casino Club":

A man suffering from swine flu has won �100,000 at an online casino while recuperating in his sick bed.

Kevin Packer, a 28-year-old carpenter from Surrey, had never tried online gambling before, but that didn't prevent him from winning the jackpot at William Hill's Casino Club, reports the Daily Star.

Mr Packer spotted an advert for the �30 no deposit offer from William Hill while he was at home passing time on Facebook.

"I must be the luckiest flu victim in the world," he told the newspaper. "If I hadn't been laid up I'd never have gone on Facebook in the middle of the morning."

"It was the best tonic in the world and pretty soon I was feeling much better," he added.

Mr Parker revealed that he plans to use the money to fund the tuition to fulfil his life-long dream of becoming a PE teacher.

Earlier this week, a 90-year-old Canadian woman scooped the first big win of her life at the Northern Lights Casino in Prince Albert, taking home C$459,400 (�260,000).

The above report appears to have originated as a piece in The Daily Star, "Flu-hit Kevin wins 100K from sickbed".


The win is also listed on the William Hill Casino winners page:




The article itself makes some bizarre claims: it doesn't take �100,000 to become a PE teacher, since assuming your local council will not fund the course, which is unlikely considering the high demand for teachers, then a PGCE qualification costs about �5000 to complete.

It also seems strange to be downloading online casino software, setting up an account and playing a slot machine, none of which you have any previous experience, at a time when you're recovering from a potentially fatal illness.


However, the most interesting aspect of the claim is that the player could not win �100,000 from a �30 freebie at William Hill Casino.

He could, in fact, only claim �200.


Take a look at the William Hill bonus terms and conditions:

6. Please note: A player may make only one withdrawal of any winnings earned using a No Deposit Bonus, and this withdrawal is limited to a maximum amount of �200. Any remaining winnings will be deleted from the player's account, upon making this one-time withdrawal request up to such maximum amount.

So, according to the letter of bonus law, Mr. Packer will only be paid �200 of his �100,000 jackpot, one five hundredth of the total win. William Hill will remove the additional �99,800.

What a pity he didn't read the terms and conditions.


Funnily enough, William Hill Casino is not lying about anything, assuming the basic facts are correct: the player did, in fact, win a jackpot of one hundred thousand pounds. The fact that the casino will reclaim ninety nine thousand eight hundred pounds, and pay him two hundred, doesn't change this.

I reckon, however, that losing the vast majority of the win, and receiving a relative pittance in its place, will make a bit of a difference to Kevin Packer.


What shabby, misleading marketing tactics on the part of a reputable UK bookmaker.


This is not, in fact, the first occurance of misleading advertising on the part of a Playtech casino.

Two months ago, Joyland Casino withheld fully �2,000,000 from a �4,000,000 jackpot winner, again misleadingly stating that she had "won" the full amount - see my William Hill, Joyland Casino and Playtech article. Ironically, William Hill were again involved, but on this occasion they had acquired the casino in question from Playtech after the winnings' confiscation had taken place, so their liability was limited.


Since Silvia P was denied two million dollars of her $4,000,000 win, maybe William Hill will do the decent thing and pay Kevin Packer his full �100,000 win?

I won't be holding my breath.

Post a Comment

May 2005 | June 2005 | July 2005 | September 2005 | October 2005 | November 2005 | December 2005 | January 2006 | February 2006 | March 2006 | April 2006 | May 2006 | August 2006 | October 2006 | January 2007 | February 2007 | March 2007 | May 2007 | June 2007 | July 2007 | January 2008 | February 2008 | March 2008 | April 2008 | June 2008 | July 2008 | September 2008 | October 2008 | December 2008 | January 2009 | February 2009 | March 2009 | May 2009 | June 2009 | July 2009 | August 2009 | September 2009 | October 2009 | November 2009 | December 2009 | January 2010 | February 2010 | March 2010 |