WCOOP ‘Winner’ Telscher Appealing to Courts
PokerStars.com has been appearing in the High Court on the Isle of Man this week following a complaint by online player Natalie Telscher that the site owes her $1.228 million.
After 22 hours of play, 'TheV0id’ was one of two players left in the tournament and they agreed to split the prize but Telscher did not receive her $1.228 million payout. Appearing in court as Rational Entertainment Enterprises Limited, PokerStars.com stated that Telscher was not entitled to any winnings because she had contravened tournament rules in that she did not personally play the game. Representatives for PokerStars.com claimed that Telscher never entered or played in the tournament, meaning that the firm was entitled to disqualify both her and the third party.
High Court Deemster David Doyle adjourned the case, stating that contractual issues had to first be determined before any other areas of the case could be addressed.
'This, on the face of it, is or should be a fairly simple case,” read his judgement.
“Either the plaintiff is contractually entitled to the monies or she is not. Either the defendant was entitled to disqualify the plaintiff or it was not.'
3 comments
If you are a Gambling.com member, please login at the top left of this page.
If you are not a Gambling.com member, please complete our sign up form—membership is free and it takes just a minute or two to sign up.
Posted by SlotSpot – 8 Jul 2008, 6:39 AM
It sounds to me like they are trying to weasle out of paying her by saying she was not actually playing, that someone was playing for her. I don't know how they would know that, with out her telling them. I think it's a sidestep!
Posted by gamblingfool – 7 Jul 2008, 1:26 PM
I don't get this - are they saying she's not entitled because she was playing remotely or did someone else do the actual playing for her? If the two players agreed on the split, what is the big deal to PokerStars? Either way I should think they would have to pay out the same amount of money.
Posted by tattyteddy – 8 Jul 2008, 7:04 AM
I think the dealio i that she let someone play for her (player B) and they came to a draw with the player they played against (player C) therefore making a payout to her null and void (player A) because she breached the TOS by letting someone else use her account and play for her. Still kind of dumb, but it is what it is.