As has already been said, a FAQ is not a contract and users should not have to read an entire FAQ to make sure they don't get swindled by gotchas. FAQs are for when people have questions (which are frequently asked), not mandatory reading. A terms and conditions that are presented or clearly linked to on each bet page would be a different story. Better yet would be an actual contract. Snackman signed a transaction, not a contract. And even then, contracts don't make swindling acceptable.

Also I don't understand why the recipient (bitbet in this case) signing a contract with shareholders has anything to do with how they handle customers. They still have an obligation to treat customers honestly and fairly. If part of their deal with shareholders was that they would accept user deposits and then one day close down and run away with those deposits, it wouldn't excuse that behavior.

I get that bitcoin is caveat emptor, and one could fault snackman for not being careful about vetting BitBet and going over their policies with a fine-tooth comb before he sent them money. That doesn't make what BitBet did alright, and snackman is now doing the right thing by warning others about BitBet's unscrupulous practices. Personally, I like to see people get their wealth through voluntary trade and ethical behavior, and there's nothing ethical or voluntary about advertising a betting service and then confiscating a bet without delivering any service simply because of a cockeyed policy buried in a FAQ.