CyberCriminal.com

Betfair

We are investigating Betfair for allegedly attempting to conceal critical reviews and adverse news from Google by improperly submitting copyright takedown notices. This includes potential violations such as impersonation, fraud, and perjury.

PARTIES INVOLVED : Betfair

ALLEGATIONS : Perjury, Fraud, Impersonation

INCIDENT DATE : December 30, 2024

INVESTIGATED BY : Ethan Katz

TOOLS USED : Lumen, SecurityTrails

CASE NO : 2991/A/2025

CRIME TYPE : Intellectual Property Scam

PUBLISHED ON : 10 March 2025

Betfair
Due Diligence
Get everything we know about Betfair in one downloadable PDF document
Is This About You?
We encourage you to share details of the actual perpetrators and get your story straight.

What We Are Investigating?

Our firm is launching a comprehensive investigation into Betfair over allegations that it has been suppressing critical reviews and unfavorable Google search results by fraudulently misusing DMCA takedown notices. These actions, if proven, could constitute serious legal violations—including impersonation, fraud, and perjury.

We conducted comprehensive analyses of fraudulent copyright takedown requests, meritless legal complaints, and other unlawful efforts to suppress public access to critical information. Our reporting sheds light on the prevalence and modus operandi of a structured censorship network, often funded and used by criminal enterprises, oligarchs and criminal entities seeking to manipulate public perception and bypass AML checks conducted by financial organisations.

The fake DMCA notices in this investigation appears to have been strategically deployed to remove negative content from Google search results illegally. Based on this pattern, we have reasonable grounds to infer that Betfair - or an entity acting at its behest - is directly or indirectly complicit in this cyber crime.

In most such cases, such ops are executed by rogue, fly-by-night 'Online Reputation Management' agencies acting on behalf of their clients. If evidence establishes that the subject knowingly benefited from or facilitated this scam, it may be deemed an 'accomplice' or an 'accessory' to the crime.

What are they trying to censor

Betfair, one of the biggest names in online betting, thrives on a carefully curated public image one that champions fairness, innovation, and responsible gambling. But peel back the glossy veneer, and a different picture emerges: a company entangled in regulatory evasion, secret backroom deals, and a troubling history of failing to protect its most vulnerable customers. From facilitating the destructive habits of problem gamblers to quietly cutting deals with watchdogs to avoid public scrutiny, Betfair seems more interested in shielding its profits than upholding ethical business practices. And when negative press threatens to expose these uncomfortable truths? The company appears to do what any giant corporation with skeletons in its closet would—attempt to censor, deflect, and minimize the damage.

The Tragic Case of Luke Ashton

In April 2021, Luke Ashton, a man battling a severe gambling addiction, tragically took his own life. Despite exhibiting intensive gambling behavior in the weeks leading up to his death, Betfair’s safeguarding mechanisms failed to intervene effectively. The coroner’s inquest criticized Betfair’s lack of meaningful interaction with Luke, highlighting a significant lapse in their duty of care. This case marked the first time a gambling operator was formally involved in an inquest, setting a precedent for the industry.

Regulatory Evasions and Secret Deals

The UK’s Gambling Commission, the body responsible for regulating the industry, has been found making clandestine agreements with betting firms like Betfair. These “special measures” allow companies to avoid formal regulatory actions—such as fines or license revocations—by surrendering profits from regulatory failures and implementing action plans. This system keeps corporate failings out of the public eye, effectively shielding gambling companies at the expense of vulnerable gamblers. Betfair was under such special measures during the period leading up to Luke Ashton’s death, a fact only disclosed after his inquest.

Coroners’ Reluctance to Scrutinize

Families of individuals who have taken their own lives due to gambling addiction have expressed frustration with the coroner service’s reluctance to thoroughly investigate the role of betting firms. Despite evidence suggesting that gambling is linked to hundreds of suicides each year, only in one completed inquest has a gambling company been named as an “interested person.” This lack of accountability prevents lessons from being learned and necessary reforms from being implemented.

Financial Hits and Operational Challenges

In addition to regulatory and ethical concerns, Flutter Entertainment faced substantial financial losses due to a streak of “very unfavorable” US sports results, where the highest rate of favorites won in nearly two decades. Between November 12 and the end of December 2024, these results led to an estimated adverse impact on gross gaming revenue of $438 million and a revenue reduction of around $390 million. The most significant loss was from the Detroit Lions’ victory over the San Francisco 49ers on December 30, costing Flutter $74 million.

A Pattern of Controversial Practices

Betfair has a history of implementing policies that have drawn criticism from its user base. In 2008, the company introduced a “Premium Charge,” affecting less than 0.5% of its members, according to Betfair. However, this move was met with significant backlash from the broader exchange betting community, altering the company’s relationship with its customers and challenging its long-standing mantra of being a neutral betting exchange “where winners are welcome.” In June 2011, Betfair raised this Premium Charge to 60% for some customers, further fueling outrage.

The Censorship Conundrum

The accumulation of these controversies paints a picture of a company more interested in protecting its profits than addressing the systemic issues within its operations. By engaging in secret deals with regulators and implementing policies that favor the house, Betfair appears to be attempting to censor negative information and avoid public scrutiny. This strategy not only undermines the trust of its customers but also poses significant risks for potential investors who may be unaware of the company’s precarious ethical standing.

Conclusion

Betfair and Flutter Entertainment’s pattern of regulatory evasion, inadequate safeguarding measures, and controversial business practices should serve as red flags for investors and prompt immediate action from regulatory authorities. The lives affected by gambling-related harm and the lack of accountability within the industry highlight the urgent need for comprehensive reforms to protect vulnerable individuals and ensure corporate responsibility.

  • https://lumendatabase.org/notices/47611140
  • https://lumendatabase.org/notices/47633857
  • December 30, 2024
  • December 31, 2024
  • Angad Arkham
  • Fabiola Network Solution
  • https://delhinationalpost.com/2024/01/30/parhaat-nettikasinot-2024-parhaat-kasinot-listattuna/
  • https://delhinationalpost.com/2024/01/30/parhaat-nettikasinot-2024-parhaat-kasinot-listattuna/
  • https://www.kasinohai.com/parhaat-nettikasinot
  • http://kasinohai.com/parhaat-nettikasinot

Evidence Box

Evidence and relevant screenshots related to our investigation

Targeted Content and Red Flags

kasinohai

Bethard Casino: A Gimmicky Betting Site with Overhyped Bonuses

  • Adverse News
Visit Link

betfairtradingblog

Betfair Scam That Cost a Punter £17,000!

  • Red Flag
Visit Link

theguardian

This article is more than 3 months old Widow of gambling addict lambasts watchdog’s failure to investigate suicides

  • Red Flag
Visit Link

About the Author

The author is affiliated with TU Dresden and analyzes public databases such as Lumen Database and Maltego to identify and expose online censorship. In his personal capacity, he and his team have been actively investigating and reporting on organized crime related to fraudulent copyright takedown schemes.

Additionally, his team provides advisory services to major law firms and is frequently consulted on matters pertaining to intellectual property law.

Escalate This Case
Please enable JavaScript in your browser to complete this form.
Checkboxes

Learn All About Fake Copyright Takedown Scam

Or go directly to the feedback section and share your thoughts

How This Was Done

The fake DMCA notices we found always use the 'back-dated article' technique. With this technique, the wrongful notice sender (or copier) creates a copy of a 'true original' article and back-dates it, creating a 'fake original' article (a copy of the true original) that, at first glance, appears to have been published before the true original

What Happens Next?

Based on the feedback, information, and requests received from all relevant parties, our team will formally notify the affected party of the alleged infringement. Following a thorough review, we will submit a counter-notice to reinstate any link that has been removed by Google, in accordance with applicable legal provisions. Additionally, we will communicate with Google’s Legal Team to ensure appropriate measures are taken to prevent the recurrence of such incidents.

You are Never Alone in Your Fight.

Generate public support against the ones who wronged you!

User Reviews

Domain Check

Stop fraud before it happens with unbeatable speed, scale, depth, and breadth.

Recent Checks

Cyber Investigation

Uncover hidden digital threats and secure your assets with our expert cyber investigation services.

Recent Investigation

Threat Alerts

Stay ahead of cyber threats with our daily list of the latest alerts and vulnerabilities.

Threat Alerts

Client Dashboard

Your trusted source for breaking news and insights on cybercrime and digital security trends.

Client Login