| Recurring |
one_organization, multiple_organization |
(a) The software failure incident related to the online betting firm 888 involved a technical failure in the company's systems that allowed customers who had signed up to its self-exclusion scheme to still access their accounts and gamble significant amounts of money [62029].
(b) The article mentions that the fine imposed on 888 is part of a string of penalties imposed on the gambling industry by the regulator for various failings, including failure to prevent problem gambling and money laundering. Other companies like Paddy Power, Gala Coral (now merged with Ladbrokes), and Betfred have also faced penalties for similar issues, indicating that similar incidents have occurred at multiple organizations within the gambling industry [62029]. |
| Phase (Design/Operation) |
design, operation |
(a) The software failure incident in the case of 888 was primarily due to design-related factors introduced by system development. The technical failure in the company's systems allowed customers who had signed up for the self-exclusion scheme to still deposit money and gamble, leading to significant flaws in protecting consumers from harm [62029].
(b) Additionally, the failure can also be attributed to operational factors related to the misuse of the system. One customer was able to make 850,000 bets worth £1.3m in one year, using money stolen from their employer. This misuse of the system by the customer, who resorted to crime to fund their gambling habit, highlights operational failures in detecting and preventing such behavior [62029]. |
| Boundary (Internal/External) |
within_system, outside_system |
(a) within_system:
The software failure incident at the online betting firm 888 was primarily due to significant flaws in the company's systems that led to customers who had signed up for the self-exclusion scheme being able to deposit money and gamble despite their self-imposed bans [62029].
(b) outside_system:
The failure was also influenced by the lack of interaction with the customer, given the frequency, duration, and sums of money involved in the gambling, which raised serious concerns about 888's safeguarding of customers at risk of gambling harm [62029]. |
| Nature (Human/Non-human) |
non-human_actions, human_actions |
(a) The software failure incident in the case of the online betting firm 888 was primarily due to non-human actions, specifically a technical failure in the company's systems. This technical failure allowed customers who had signed up for the self-exclusion scheme to still deposit money into their accounts and continue gambling, despite their intention to ban themselves from gambling [62029].
(b) However, human actions also played a role in this software failure incident. The Gambling Commission found that 888 failed to spot the "visible signs of problem gambling" displayed by one customer who resorted to crime to fund their gambling habit. This customer was able to make over 850,000 bets worth £1.3m, including money stolen from their employer, over a 13-month period. The failure to intervene and address the problem gambling behavior of this customer was a human action contributing to the software failure incident [62029]. |
| Dimension (Hardware/Software) |
software |
(a) The software failure incident in the case of 888 online betting firm was primarily due to contributing factors originating in software rather than hardware. The incident involved a technical failure in the company's systems that allowed customers who had signed up for self-exclusion to still access their accounts and gamble significant amounts of money [62029]. This failure was related to flaws in the software systems that were supposed to prevent such access and protect vulnerable customers from harm. The company acknowledged the need to fix its self-exclusion systems, which arose from a software issue where customers who self-excluded from some brands were still able to gamble with others [62029].
(b) The software failure incident was also attributed to contributing factors originating in software. The Gambling Commission found "significant flaws" in 888's efforts to protect consumers from harm, indicating a failure in the software systems designed to safeguard customers at risk of gambling harm [62029]. The company mentioned that changes were being made to its systems to better identify patterns of problem gambling in the future and to tighten up its self-exclusion system, indicating a software-related issue that needed to be addressed [62029]. |
| Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) |
non-malicious |
(a) The software failure incident in the article is non-malicious. The failure was due to technical flaws in the company's systems that allowed customers who had voluntarily banned themselves from gambling to still access their accounts and continue gambling, leading to significant financial losses and harm to vulnerable customers [62029]. |
| Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) |
poor_decisions |
The software failure incident related to the online betting firm 888 was primarily due to poor decisions rather than accidental decisions. The incident involved significant flaws in the company's systems that allowed customers who had self-excluded themselves from gambling to still access their accounts and gamble large sums of money, leading to harm and financial losses [62029]. The failure to properly implement and monitor the self-exclusion scheme, as well as the lack of interaction with customers displaying signs of problem gambling, indicated a failure in decision-making processes within the company. |
| Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) |
development_incompetence, unknown |
(a) The software failure incident related to development incompetence is evident in the case of the online betting firm 888. The Gambling Commission found "significant flaws" in 888's efforts to protect consumers from harm, highlighting a technical failure in the company's systems that allowed customers who had signed up for self-exclusion to still deposit money and gamble, leading to serious consequences such as one customer stealing money from their employer to fund their gambling habit [62029].
(b) The software failure incident related to accidental factors is not explicitly mentioned in the provided article. |
| Duration |
temporary |
The software failure incident reported in the articles related to the online betting firm 888 was temporary. The incident involved a technical failure in the company's systems that allowed customers who had signed up for the self-exclusion scheme to still access their accounts and continue gambling [62029]. This temporary failure was due to specific circumstances within the company's systems that led to the flaw in the self-exclusion mechanism, rather than being a permanent issue affecting all aspects of the software. |
| Behaviour |
omission, other |
(a) crash: The software failure incident in this case did not involve a crash where the system loses state and does not perform any of its intended functions. The issue was related to flaws in the company's systems that allowed customers who had self-excluded themselves from gambling to still access their accounts and continue gambling [62029].
(b) omission: The software failure incident can be categorized as an omission where the system omitted to perform its intended functions at instances. Specifically, the self-exclusion system failed to prevent customers who had voluntarily banned themselves from gambling from accessing their accounts and gambling, leading to significant harm and financial losses [62029].
(c) timing: The software failure incident was not related to timing issues where the system performed its intended functions correctly but too late or too early. Instead, the failure was more about the system's inability to enforce self-exclusion measures effectively and in a timely manner to protect vulnerable customers [62029].
(d) value: The software failure incident did not involve the system performing its intended functions incorrectly in terms of producing incorrect outputs or results. The issue was more about the system's failure to prevent individuals from accessing their accounts despite being self-excluded, leading to excessive gambling and financial harm [62029].
(e) byzantine: The software failure incident did not exhibit characteristics of a byzantine failure where the system behaves erroneously with inconsistent responses and interactions. The primary issue was the lack of proper safeguards and controls in place to enforce self-exclusion measures effectively, rather than erratic or inconsistent behavior of the system itself [62029].
(f) other: The software failure incident can be categorized as a failure related to oversight and negligence in implementing proper self-exclusion mechanisms. The company's failure to identify and prevent problem gambling behaviors, allowing individuals to continue gambling despite being self-excluded, highlights a significant oversight in their systems and processes [62029]. |