High Court dismisses £1.48 million player losses case against Betfair
The case against Betfair was heard in London’s Royal Courts of Justice between 1 and 12 July, with the ruling handed down on 14 November.
Claimant Lee Gibson accused Flutter’s Betfair arm of failing their duty of care to him, though at no point did he tell them he was suffering with a gambling addiction.
But court filings noted that Betfair did not owe Gibson a duty of care as they had no indication that he needed one.
“[By law] a person does not owe a common law duty of care to prevent others suffering harm as a result of their own acts,” the ruling said.
Gibson’s case argued the operator, including his VIP manager, had encouraged him to dodge responsible gambling checks. But Flutter refuted this claim and provided evidence of Gibson assuring the operator he could afford his gambling activities and even suggesting he was particularly wealthy.
He also made the claim that Betfair was operating unlawfully and in breach of its licence and so each individual bet he placed should have been voided.
Claimant passes Betfair compliance checks and rejects RG tools
Instead, the operator reminded Gibson he could himself implement controls on his account to reduce his betting. Gibson also passed all his AML and compliance checks during his time betting with the Betfair Exchange.
Throughout the time Gibson’s account was active, various compliance checks were carried out and at one point on 27 June 2018, the documents on the claimant’s salary were rejected and his account was suspended.
Gibson provided various bank statements, confirming his income was sufficient to support his spending and his account was reopened on 16 July. At the time Gibson was asked to confirm he was happy with his level of spending and was reminded that player protection tools were available.
As part of the proceedings, the judge considered Betfair’s compliance processes during the relevant period. Flutter made a significant regulatory settlement on 16 October 2018 relating to five player cases from 2016, but the judge said a lack of evidence made it too difficult to determine whether Gibson’s case was related.
In a blog summarising the case, gambling law firm Wiggin notes the decision reaffirms that operators do not generally owe customers a duty of care.
“The courts will not allow one to be established, particularly so soon after the recent review of the Gambling Act rejected the notion,” the firm said.
“The judgement will be welcomed by operators as bringing clarity and further certainty to the law and the legal framework governing B2C contracts in this heavily regulated space.”