Unfair terms and the Consumer Rights Act

What the UK unfair terms rules in the Consumer Rights Act say

Part 2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA) controls the terms businesses use in contracts with consumers. Signing up to a casino and accepting a bonus creates exactly that kind of contract, so bonus terms are covered. The core rule is in section 62 of the Consumer Rights Act (opens in a new tab): an unfair term of a consumer contract, or an unfair consumer notice, is not binding on the consumer.

The wording of sections 64, 68 and 69 is in the Part 2 fairness cross-heading on legislation.gov.uk (opens in a new tab). This page is part of our UK casino bonus rules section.

The fairness test: good faith and significant imbalance

Section 62(4) asks two linked questions. Does the term cause a significant imbalance in the rights and obligations of the casino and the player, to the player’s detriment? And is that imbalance contrary to the requirement of good faith? Good faith here means fair and open dealing: a business shouldn’t take advantage of a consumer’s weaker position or lack of attention.

Section 62(5) then says fairness is judged in context: what the contract is about, the circumstances when the term was agreed, and all the other terms. So a single clause isn’t judged in a vacuum. A £5 maximum bet might be perfectly fair on a £100 bonus with 10x wagering that is shown clearly before you opt in; the same clause hidden deep in a general terms page and applied to your own cash would look very different.

Only a court can decide finally whether a term is unfair. In practice, most bonus disputes are settled by the casino, an ADR service such as IBAS, or the Gambling Commission’s regulatory pressure, all of which apply the same principles.

Transparency, core terms and the consumer-friendly reading

Section 64 gives one exemption: terms setting the main subject matter or the price can’t be challenged as unfair if they are transparent and prominent. Transparent means plain, intelligible and legible; prominent means an average consumer would actually notice them. For a bonus, the headline amount (‘50% up to £100’) is the subject matter. A buried restriction that changes what you actually get isn’t a core term and stays open to the fairness test.

Section 68 requires every written term to be transparent. Section 69 is the one players should remember: if a term could reasonably mean two things, the meaning most favourable to the consumer wins. Lawyers call this contra proferentem, reading a term against the party that wrote it.

Worked example: an ambiguous max-bet term

Suppose a term says ‘maximum bet £5 while a bonus is active’, and you placed £5 spins with an extra 50p side feature, making £5.50 per round. If the terms don’t make clear whether the limit applies to the base stake or the whole round, section 69 points to the reading that favours you. If they spell it out (‘total stake per game round, including features’), there’s no ambiguity to rely on. Clear terms protect both sides, which is why our guide to casino bonus max bet rules recommends reading the exact wording before you play.

How the Gambling Commission enforces unfair terms law

The CRA is general consumer law, but the Gambling Commission has written it into licences. LCCP 7.1.1 (opens in a new tab) says:

1. Terms on which gambling is offered, and consumer notices, must not be unfair within the meaning of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, and licensees must comply with them.
2. Terms and notices must be transparent within the meaning of the Act and easy to access.
3. Changes to terms must meet the same fairness and transparency tests, and customers must be told about material changes before they take effect.
4. Licensees must not commit unfair commercial practices under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 at any stage of their dealings with consumers.

That turns an unfair term from a private contract problem into a licensing problem. The Commission can investigate and fine an operator without a player ever going to court. For how the conditions fit together, see UK licence conditions (LCCP), while how UKGC fines relate to bonuses covers enforcement.

Bonus terms the UK regulators treat as unfair

The Commission’s guidance on fair and transparent terms, built on the CMA’s 2018 work, identifies the kinds of term most likely to fail. The table pairs each with the protection that replaces it.

The Commission’s page on terms giving undue discretion (opens in a new tab) says a term letting a licensee decide when and how it applies would be unfair under the CRA, and names terms about irregular play, multiple accounts and third-party funding as the usual problem areas. Our glossary entries on irregular play and bonus forfeiture explain the words you’ll see.

Unfair terms in practice: the 2025 Taichi Tech fine

In July 2025 the Gambling Commission fined Taichi Tech Limited, which traded as Fafabet, £170,000. Part of the case concerned a term that allowed the operator to close accounts or forfeit winnings at its discretion. The Commission’s announcement of the Taichi Tech fine (opens in a new tab) is a reminder that the regulator treats discretionary forfeiture clauses as a licence breach, not a technicality.

For players, the lesson is to read forfeiture clauses closely. A term that names the exact behaviour (say, stakes above £5 with an active bonus) and the exact result (bonus winnings removed) is much more defensible than one that leaves everything to the operator’s judgement. More cases are collected on our page about UK operator fines for bonus failings.

Unfair terms and the Consumer Rights Act in pounds

These scenarios are illustrations, not legal advice, and use round numbers.

A fair, clearly stated winnings cap

10bet’s welcome bonus (18+, new UK customers, terms apply) is 100% up to £25, wagered 10x on slots within 3 days, with maximum bonus winnings of £1,000. On a £25 deposit you’d wager £250 (10 × £25). The £1,000 cap is stated with the offer, so it’s far less likely to be challenged than an unstated cap applied after a big win.

An unfair surprise forfeiture

Imagine a player claims a £50 bonus, completes £500 of wagering and ends with £180, only to be told the casino has ‘decided’ their play was irregular without pointing to any specific term. Under the Commission’s guidance they’re entitled to a full explanation of which restriction was broken; if none was clearly set out in advance, a term relied on to remove the £180 is open to challenge as unfair.

Own money during a bonus

A player deposits £60, opts in to a bonus and wants to stop after losing £15. A term saying they must finish the wagering before withdrawing the remaining £45 would fail: Commission guidance says the deposit balance must be withdrawable at any time, and our bonus withdrawal rules page explains why.

How to challenge an unfair bonus term

1. Save everything: the offer page, the terms version you accepted, screenshots of your balance and any messages.
2. Ask the casino in writing which exact term it relied on and why. You are entitled to an explanation.
3. Make a formal complaint through the casino’s published complaints procedure, citing the term and why it’s unfair or unclear.
4. Wait up to 8 weeks. If it isn’t resolved, the casino must tell you which ADR provider to use.
5. Take it to that free ADR service, such as IBAS, whose registered operators agree to be bound by decisions up to £10,000.
6. Report the term to the Gambling Commission too. It doesn’t resolve individual complaints, but it uses reports to decide where to act.

Our guide to how to complain about a bonus has templates, and UK complaints and ADR rules explains the deadlines in more detail.

What the unfair terms rules don’t do

• They don’t remove clear, fair conditions. Wagering within the 10x cap, a stated expiry or a stated max bet can all be fair if shown properly.
• They don’t let you ignore a term because you didn’t read it, if it was transparent and prominent.
• They don’t cover business-to-business deals: Part 2 is about consumer contracts.
• They don’t set specific numbers. Limits such as the 10x wagering cap and the £5 and £2 slot stake limits come from Commission rules, not the Act.
• They don’t guarantee a refund of losses. A fair term that you broke can still lead to bonus winnings being removed.

For a broader look at whether bonus terms bind you, read are bonus terms legally binding.

Timeline: unfair terms law and UK casino bonuses

The background to the 2018 action is on our CMA undertakings 2018 page.

Fair bonus terms and our partner offers

Simple offers leave less room for disputes over unclear terms. The three below pay spin winnings with no wagering. All are 18+, terms apply, and were last checked on 5 October 2026.

• Coral: bet £10 on slots, get 100 free spins at 10p (£10 of spins); accept within 48 hours, use within 7 days, no wagering on winnings. Neteller, PayPal, Paysafe, Skrill, prepaid cards and certain debit cards don’t qualify.
• Ladbrokes: play £10 on slots, get 50 free spins a day for 10 days (max 500 at 10p, up to £50 of spins), claim before 23:59 daily, valid 7 days, no wagering. Prepaid cards, PayPal, Paysafe, Neteller, Skrill and Moneybookers deposits don’t qualify.
• PlayOJO: deposit £10 or more for 80 free spins on Big Bass Bonanza (10p each, £8 of spins), winnings paid as cash. Not available in Northern Ireland.

Read each casino’s full terms before opting in, and see our guides to the Coral bonus, Ladbrokes bonus and PlayOJO bonus. Fair terms don’t change the maths: spins still return less than their face value on average.

18+. Gambling should be entertainment that costs money, not a way to make it. Decide a budget before you play: set a budget. Free, confidential help: National Gambling Helpline 0808 8020 133.