Fan Duel should send him some tickets to a game, try to create a positive interaction for him, and let's move on.
It's within their power to improve their automated system to not offer stupid bets.
Wouldn't it then be reasonable for them to give a refund?
It's not reasonable for FanDuel to assume a mistake there. However, if a customer purchased a bet on a game that had already happened it would be reasonable to assume a mistake had been made.
Mistakes happen and the law of contracts deals with them.
So then it's also within your power to never write bugs. Have you ever written any? How did that happen? It was within your power not to do so, right?
That is, my argument is about how you decide responsibility, not about technical excellence.
I've literally made tens of thousands of dollars in mistakes over my careers (try not to make the same one twice) and 9 out of 10 times the company would go "shit dude, don't ever let that happen again!"
This is a completely reversible mistake and no one was harmed in any way (feelings don't count). Let's not go off the rails and start making Therac-25 like comparisons. This isn't some abstract problem; the issue is well defined, so let's stay within the realm of reason.
There are reversible mistakes too.
That's why. What's the impact here? The guy didn't lose anything; he got his hopes up and was disappointed, that's all. People here are acting like the degree of severity/impact doesn't matter, but of course it does.
That or they might need to close up shop.
Most people prefer the current system where they are able to make very dynamic sports bets, sometimes in real time, with the rare mistake.
Test the hell out of that and you are a long way towards where you want to be.
It kind of smells like they had one, except it only panicked after the bet sold...
If a better makes a mistake, they still lose their money.
The same should apply on the other side.
I think they should bite the bullet, pay it out, turn to their software engineers, and say "it's worth 82,000$ to this company to ensure that never happens again."
Such bugs becomes not a costly mistake but instead existentially threatening
And we certainly don’t have a software industry capable of supporting that environment
You know they did not inform people of errors the other way.
> The bettor, who identified himself to News 12 New Jersey as Anthony Prince, placed the wager over the counter at the sportsbook at the Meadowlands Racetrack
I think most sports betting consumers here prefer the current, lower cost, more diverse system with a slightly higher error rate.
I'd reckon most people complaining here don't even bet on sports, but want to grandstand against bookies. I can understand that I guess.
They offered that and $500. He refused and got a lawyer.
Yes, but corporations aren't humans. If the mistake went the other way, it likely wouldn't matter. The human would have to deal with it. I say give him the $80k+ and learn to deal with your mistakes.
Mitt Romney gave your opponents their line: "Corporations are people, my friend"
This isn't a "human interaction". A corporation isn't a human and is governed by the "make as much money as possible" theory (Shareholder Primacy), so why would we treat them the same as if this is a human interaction?
>FanDuel instead offered to pay him around $500 and give him tickets to three New York Giants games. Prince declined to take FanDuel's offer and told News 12 New Jersey that he planned to hire an attorney.