Connect with us

Connecticut

DraftKings fined in Connecticut for online slot machines that paid zero wins for a week

Published

on

DraftKings fined in Connecticut for online slot machines that paid zero wins for a week


Justin Sullivan | Getty Images

DraftKings and another gambling company were fined a total of $22,500 by the state of Connecticut for operating an online slot machine game that failed to pay any winners on more than 20,600 spins over one week in August 2023.

The game, Deal or No Deal Banker’s Bonanza, was advertised to pay out almost 95 cents for every dollar wagered on the game.

Advertisement

But from Aug. 15 through Aug. 21 last year, a total of 522 people in Connecticut who wagered nearly $24,000 on the game over more than 20,659 spins received no wins, according to a report by Connecticut’s Department of Consumer Protection.

“Effectively, it was impossible for any Connecticut patron to achieve a win on the game for a period of 7 days, while live on the gaming platform,” according to the report, which was first detailed by the CT Insider news outlet on Tuesday.

A spokeswoman for the DCP said, “It was the first incident [in the state] where an online slot machine was not paying out as advertised.”

Audioundwerbung | Istock | Getty Images

The report found that neither DraftKings and the game’s producer, White Hat Gaming, notified Consumer Protection of the problem until the department requested information from the companies on Aug. 31 last year.

Advertisement

That was more than a week after customers complained about the situation, and after an internal investigation by White Hat Gaming determined the cause of the problem in paying out as advertised.

A file in the game’s software had not been loaded properly, according to the Consumer Protection probe. The game was relaunched on Aug. 22 after a fix was implemented.

Nearly a week earlier, on Aug. 16, a player told DraftKings in an online complaint that they had played “a couple hundred spins” of bets of 20 cents apiece, “and not had one single winning spin or partial win,” according to a summary of complaints reviewed in the probe.

“I believe that RTP is incorrect,” wrote the customer, using the gambling acronym “Return to Player.”

A DraftKings representative wrote the customer in response on Aug. 17, suggesting there was no problem.

Advertisement

“I understand how frustrating it can be when you haven’t hit a win,” the rep wrote. “However, all casino games are random, regardless of the player or length of time you’ve been playing.”

Another company rep, in response to a second customer’s complaint about many spins without seeing a payout, assured the player that the casino platform was regulated by the Consumer Protection Department and “are monitored on a regular basis to ensure fairness.”

The rep also told the player that there was an option to “self-regulate your play” but setting limits on wagers on the platform.

Another customer on Aug. 20 wrote DraftKings that he had played the game with more than 100 spins without a payout.

“I believe this is a problem as I have never played a slot game where I haven’t won a single cent in over 100 spins,” the player wrote.

Advertisement

In a response to that complaint, a DraftKings rep wrote, “I understand it can be frustrating to have a bit of a cold streak, but I can assure you that there is nothing wrong with the game itself.”

That response came three days after DraftKings had informed White Hat of three patron complaints about the game not paying out and after White Hat’s business intelligence team discovered an issue with the RTP settings on the game, according to the Consumer Protection Probe.

On Aug. 29, a full week after White Hat identified the glitch and fixed it the game, “all patrons were eventually refunded” on their play during the affected week “without any notification from Draft Kings” about the reason for the refund, the DCP said in its report.

In January, White Hat agreed to pay the DCP $3,500 in fines to settle allegations that the game operated for a week with a 0% Return to Player in violation of state regulations and that the company failed to comply with reporting obligations.

In April, DraftKings agreed to pay the department $19,000 to settle the same allegations.

Advertisement

Read more CNBC politics coverage

Kaitlyn Krasselt, the spokeswoman for the Department of Consumer Protection, told CNBC that although “White Hat responded swiftly to inquiries from DCP investigators … The response from DraftKings to the consumer complaints was not satisfactory.”

“And as a result of the DCP investigation, [DraftKings] was instructed to implement greater internal controls for their products, submit regular reports for new games to DCP, and make improvements to their consumer complaints process,” Krasselt said.

She also said the incident with the slots game last year “is a great example of something that, if we were not there to intervene, may not have been taken seriously until our investigators got involved.”

A DraftKings spokesperson, in a statement to CNBC, said, “Our customers’ satisfaction and the integrity of our products are central to our success.”

“We have robust measures to monitor potential payout issues, and we investigate any concerns promptly. In the event of a game not functioning as intended, we ensure impacted customers are appropriately refunded,” the spokesperson said.

Advertisement

“The issue in Connecticut arose from an error on the game developer’s side. We identified a possible issue within 48 hours of launch and immediately escalated it for investigation. All impacted customers were fully refunded within days of concluding there was an issue, and we have not encountered any similar issues with this vendor.”

White Hat Studios, a division of White Hat Gaming, in a statement to CNBC, said, “Delivering a fun, fair and transparent gaming experience is a top priority at White Hat Studios.”

“Regarding the technical fault concerning one of our games live with DraftKings in Connecticut in 2023, we took immediate action as soon as we became aware of the situation,” the company said. “It was a one-off incident and all affected players were fully refunded by DraftKings.”

“We take player protection very seriously and worked closely with the regulator and DraftKings to resolve the issue.”



Source link

Advertisement

Connecticut

Body recovered after Bloomfield house fire and explosion

Published

on

Body recovered after Bloomfield house fire and explosion


A body was recovered after a house explosion resulting in a house fire in the area of Banbury Lane on Monday night.

Fire Marshal Roger Nelson says they recovered a body around 1:15 on Tuesday morning. The identity of the body found will not be released at this time.

When officers arrived around 6:11 p.m. they encountered the house fully in flames, police said.

According to police, the fire department was able to extinguish the fire, but the house sustained devastating damage.

Advertisement

There are no criminal aspects related to this incident at this time.

The incident was contained to the one house.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Connecticut

Exclusive | Ex-CBS anchor Josh Elliott back on Connecticut dating scene after ugly Liz Cho split

Published

on

Exclusive | Ex-CBS anchor Josh Elliott back on Connecticut dating scene after ugly Liz Cho split


Ex-CBS host Josh Elliott is looking for love eight months after he filed for divorce from “Eyewitness News” anchor Liz Cho.

“Josh is out and about on the dating scene in Fairfield County,” a spy exclusively tells Page Six. “He’s been seen at the bars in the area where middle-aged singles congregate.” 

A second source tells Page Six, “Josh isn’t dating anyone, but he is open to meeting people. His daughter is his priority.”

Page Six can also reveal that Elliott moved out of his and Cho’s estimated $4.2 million Connecticut marital home in January.

Advertisement
Josh Elliott (pictured above back in July) is “open” to dating eight months after filing for divorce from Liz Cho. FOX Image Collection via Getty Images
The former CBS anchor (seen here in 2016 with his estranged wife) has been on the dating scene in Connecticut. Kristina Bumphrey/Starpix / Shutterstock

In court papers dated Jan. 29 and obtained by Page Six, Cho revealed Elliott moved out of their home and into a new residence without her knowledge.

Cho claimed she was notified by Optimum on Jan. 21, regarding her ex installing internet at his new home.

“The Defendant learned for the first time from said communication that on or about January 15, 2026, the Plaintiff secured an unfurnished rental residence located in Southport, Connecticut,” the filing read.

“It is now clear that the Plaintiff surreptitiously entered a new lease…” the court papers continued.

A rep for Elliott did not respond to Page Six’s request for comment.

Advertisement
Elliott moved out of the Connecticut home he shared with Cho earlier this year. Getty Images
The former “Good Morning America” anchor divorced from Cho in June after a decade of marriage. Getty Images

Page Six broke the ousted CBS anchor filed for divorce from Cho after a decade of marriage on June 20, 2025.

“The marriage of the parties has broken down irretrievably,” the court papers read. Elliott asked for a “dissolution of the marriage” and for “an equitable distribution of all property, both real and personal.”

Cho responded to her estranged husband’s complaint on Nov. 6 and filed a cross-complaint against him. She also stated their marriage “has broken down irretrievably.”

The divorce became messy when Cho requested “copies of written correspondence, emails, cards, WeChat messages, Facebook messages, social media messaging, instant messaging, telephonic text messages, transcribed voicemail messages or any written forms of communication” between Elliott and “any person, other than the defendant, with whom [Elliott] have or have had a romantic and/or sexual relationship, from July 11, 2015, to the present.”

Elliott objected the request on the “grounds that the time frame of the request for production is unreasonable, unnecessary, harassing and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”

Advertisement

Cho also requested “monies spent for the benefit of any person with whom you have had a romantic and/or sexual relationship, other than the defendant,” “property given or transferred by you to any person with whom you have had a romantic and/or sexual relationship, other than the defendant,” “monies spent for your benefit by any person with whom you have had a romantic and/or sexual relationship with, other than the defendant.”

The TV personality in addition requested financial records, documentation proving Elliott’s search for employment — as he was ousted from CBS in 2017 — travel invoices, and more. Elliott objected to the requests.

A source close to the couple previously told Page Six, “This is standard in a divorce. Her lawyer is doing a thorough document request. The documents she is requesting are standard.” The insider also insisted there is no evidence Elliott had a relationship with anyone outside the marriage.

As Page Six reported, Cho requested documentation from Elliott, including financial. Kristina Bumphrey/Starpix / Shutterstock
He objected her requests, as their divorce proceedings have turned nasty. Cindy Ord

Also in the Jan. 29 court filing, Cho filed a motion for contempt against Elliott regarding their jointly owned marital Connecticut mansion.

Cho claimed Elliott arranged for a moving truck to come to the marital residence while she was on vacation with her daughter on Jan. 19.

Advertisement

Cho claimed Elliott moved a “significant amount of furniture and furnishings from the marital residence,” and their “two Portuguese water dogs,” which she alleged at the time of the filing were not returned.

The court docs continued to allege, “On Tuesday, January 6, 2026, [Cho] realized that she was missing a valuable watch and earrings from her jewelry bag. As [Elliott] is the only other person who had access to the missing watch and jewelry, [Cho] believes [Elliott] is in possession of such personal property.”

She claimed his alleged actions are a “willful violation” of the court’s orders.

The insider alleged Elliott was the one to take care of the dogs and that he took “a small amount of furniture.”

In Elliott’s response to her filing, he objected to her request and claimed her allegations are “false and inflammatory.”

Advertisement

He claimed in court papers, “[Cho] alleges [Elliott] ‘ransacked’ and ‘abandoned’ the marital residence — claims that are patently false and intended to annoy, harass and intimidate [Elliott].

“[Elliott] did not ransack the marital home. He did not damage the property. He did not render the residence uninhabitable. He removed limited personal property and furnishings so he would have a safe haven from [Cho’s] escalating and erratic behavior direct at not only [Elliott], but his minor child as well.”

Cho accused Elliott (seen in 2019) of taking their two dogs. Getty Images
She also accused him of taking her earrings — claims he denied in court papers. GC Images

In a separate filing, he continued to defend his actions by alleging, “[Elliott] removed only limited furniture items and furnishings, many from the basement, solely to furnish a new residence after removing himself and his child from a hostile environment created by [Cho]. All property remains intact and subject to equitable distribution.”

In regard to the jewelry claim, Elliott said, “Perhaps most egregious is [Cho’s] baseless accusation that [Elliott] stole her jewelry. This allegation is made without evidence, without corroboration and without even a good-faith attempt to verify the truth.”

He then accused her of “monitoring and listening to [Elliott’s] private phone calls; rifling through [Elliott’s] personal belongings and closet; leaving the marital residence for extended periods without communication despite the presence of two dogs requiring daily care” and more claims.

Advertisement

He is requesting that the court deny her motion for contempt and they are due in court on March 20.

Lawyers for Cho and Elliott did not respond to Page Six’s request for comment regarding the divorce.

Elliott accused his estranged wife of escalating and erratic behavior. Lawyers for Cho did not respond to Page Six’s request for comment. Jamie McCarthy
Elliott is in talks to return to television to join Gayle King and Nate Burleson on “CBS Mornings.” Brian Ach

Elliott, 54, and Cho, 55, met while working for ABC and got married in July 2015.

This was the second marriage for both, as they each share a daughter from their previous relationships.

Cho has been with ABC on “Eyewitness News” since 2003, while Elliott was with ABC’s “Good Morning America” from 2011 to 2014.

Advertisement

After a brief stint with NBC, he joined CBSN as lead daytime anchor in March 2016. Nearly a year later, he was let go from the company.

Elliott has been out of the spotlight in recent years, but is now in talks to join Gayle King and Nate Burleson on “CBS Mornings,” Awful Announcing reported.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Connecticut

Man charged with murder in Hartford

Published

on

Man charged with murder in Hartford


A man was charged with murder and interfering with police on Sunday night.

According to police, officers were dispatched to an apartment on Washington Street for a wellness check of a woman who was reportedly unconscious and not breathing.

When officers arrived, they made contact with a man in the apartment who refused to cooperate and would not allow officers access. They then had to force entry into the apartment where they located the victim suffering from severe head trauma as well as the aggressive male, police said.

The man was secured and transported to the Hartford Police Detention Facility and is being held on a million-dollar bond.

Advertisement

The victim was revealed to be 76-year-old Linda Anthony and was pronounced deceased on scene.

The Hartford Police Major Crimes and Crime Scene Divisions responded to the scene and assumed the investigation.  



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending