| Recurring |
unknown |
(a) The software failure incident related to the online gambling website Eurobet UK Ltd occurred when a software bug caused a gambler named Bruno Venturi to be mistakenly charged for only one in six of his bets, leading to him winning £650,000 off an £18 stake. This incident involved a specific software bug that affected the outcome of the game and led to a dispute over the winnings [12508].
(b) There is no specific information in the provided article indicating that a similar software failure incident has happened at other organizations or with their products and services. |
| Phase (Design/Operation) |
design, operation |
(a) The software failure incident in the article is related to the design phase. The incident occurred due to a software bug caused by an error during a software upgrade. The bug led to the player being mistakenly charged for only one in six of his bets, significantly increasing his chances of winning the game [12508].
(b) The software failure incident is also related to the operation phase. The player, Bruno Venturi, continued to play the game and place bets despite the abnormal winnings, indicating a misuse of the system. He mentioned that he kept betting based on his instincts and feelings of luck, even though he was aware of the abnormality in the game [12508]. |
| Boundary (Internal/External) |
within_system |
(a) within_system: The software failure incident in this case was attributed to a software bug within the system operated by Eurobet UK Ltd. The company claimed that a software bug caused the system to mistakenly charge Bruno Venturi for only one in six of the bets he had placed, leading to his significant winnings being deemed null and void [12508].
(b) outside_system: There is no explicit mention in the article of contributing factors originating from outside the system that led to the software failure incident. |
| Nature (Human/Non-human) |
non-human_actions, human_actions |
(a) The software failure incident in this case was related to non-human actions, specifically a software bug that caused the system to mistakenly charge the gambler for only one in six of his bets, significantly increasing his chances of winning the game [12508].
(b) Human actions were also involved in this incident as the company, Eurobet UK Ltd, refused to pay out the winnings to the gambler, claiming that the bets breached the website's terms and conditions and that the winnings amounted to 'unjust enrichment' [12508]. |
| Dimension (Hardware/Software) |
hardware, software |
(a) The software failure incident in the article is related to a bug in the software, specifically a software upgrade that caused an error leading to the incorrect charging of bets placed by the gambler, Bruno Venturi. This hardware-related issue resulted in Mr. Venturi being charged for only one in six of the 6,670 wagers he placed, significantly increasing his chances of winning the game [12508].
(b) The software failure incident is primarily attributed to a software bug caused by a software upgrade. The bug led to Mr. Venturi being mistakenly charged for only a fraction of the bets he placed, impacting the outcome of the game and resulting in a dispute over his winnings. The software error was described as "mathematically inevitable" by Eurobet's representative, indicating that the issue originated within the software system [12508]. |
| Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) |
non-malicious |
(a) The software failure incident in this case appears to be non-malicious. The incident was attributed to a software bug that caused the system to mistakenly charge the gambler for only one in six of his bets, significantly increasing his chances of winning the game [12508]. The company claimed that this error was a result of a software upgrade, and the gambler himself denied any knowledge of the error during his gameplay, believing he was just lucky [12508]. The gambler's barrister argued that the failure was due to the defendant's failure to completely perform its obligations and comply with regulatory requirements, indicating a non-malicious nature of the incident [12508]. |
| Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) |
poor_decisions |
(a) The software failure incident in this case seems to be related to poor decisions made during a software upgrade. Eurobet UK Ltd claimed that a software bug caused the error which led to the player, Bruno Venturi, being charged for only one in six of his bets, resulting in his significant winnings being null and void [12508].
(b) On the other hand, Bruno Venturi, the player who won the £650,000, denies any software error as alleged by Eurobet UK Ltd. His barrister argued that Venturi did everything required of him to pay for the bets and that any omission in charging his account for repeat bets was due to the defendant's failure to perform its obligations properly [12508]. |
| Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) |
development_incompetence |
(a) The software failure incident in the article is related to development incompetence. Eurobet UK Ltd claimed that a software bug caused the winnings of the gambler, Bruno Venturi, to be null and void as he was mistakenly charged for only one in six of his bets, dramatically increasing his chances of winning the game [12508]. The company argued that the error was caused by a software upgrade, and it was 'mathematically inevitable' that Mr. Venturi would keep hitting the jackpot due to this bug [12508].
(b) The software failure incident in the article is not related to an accidental failure but rather to a deliberate claim by the company that a software bug caused the winnings to be null and void [12508]. |
| Duration |
temporary |
The software failure incident described in the article is more aligned with a temporary failure. The incident was attributed to a software bug caused by an error during a software upgrade that led to the incorrect charging of bets, significantly increasing the player's chances of winning in the online gambling game [12508]. The bug was specific to this particular situation and was not a permanent issue affecting all users of the software. |
| Behaviour |
omission, value, other |
(a) crash: The software failure incident in the article does not involve a crash where the system loses state and stops performing its intended functions [12508].
(b) omission: The software failure incident in the article involves an omission where the system failed to charge the user for all the bets placed, leading to the user winning a significant amount of money due to this omission [12508].
(c) timing: The software failure incident in the article does not involve a timing issue where the system performed its intended functions too late or too early [12508].
(d) value: The software failure incident in the article involves a value issue where the system performed its intended functions incorrectly by not charging the user for all the bets placed, resulting in the user winning a substantial amount of money [12508].
(e) byzantine: The software failure incident in the article does not exhibit a byzantine behavior where the system behaves erroneously with inconsistent responses and interactions [12508].
(f) other: The software failure incident in the article involves a situation where the company claimed a software bug caused the user to be charged for only one in six of the bets placed, leading to the user's winnings being nullified. This behavior could be categorized as a flaw in the system's payment processing logic [12508]. |