High Court rejects negligence claim against Betfair
The ruling is a significant test of whether gambling operators can be held liable for gambling-related harm through negligence law.
Key takeaways
- The High Court dismissed a negligence claim brought against Betfair by the family of Luke Ashton.
- The family alleged that promotional activity and gambling products contributed to Ashton’s death by suicide in 2021.
- Judge Jonathan Swift ruled that the specific duty of care argued by the claimants did not exist in the circumstances of the case.
- The court found insufficient evidence that Ashton had a gambling addiction and concluded the legal test of foreseeability had not been met.
- The ruling differs from a 2023 coroner’s finding that gambling addiction contributed to Ashton’s death and may affect future attempts to pursue similar negligence claims.
A High Court judge has dismissed a negligence claim against Flutter-owned Betfair brought by the family of Luke Ashton, who died by suicide in 2021. The case was closely watched because it tested whether a gambling operator could be held legally liable for gambling-related harm through negligence, but the court concluded that the duty of care argued by the claimants did not apply in the circumstances presented.
UK.- A High Court judge has dismissed a negligence claim brought against Flutter Entertainment-owned Betfair by the family of Luke Ashton, whose relatives argued that his gambling activity contributed to his death by suicide in 2021.
Ashton, 40, from Leicester, died in 2021. In legal proceedings launched in 2024, his family alleged that Betfair had encouraged his gambling through promotional activity and product features that they described as addictive. Had the claim succeeded, it would have marked a significant legal development in efforts to hold gambling operators liable for gambling-related harm.
Betfair successfully defended the negligence claim, arguing that gambling operators do not owe a general legal duty to protect customers experiencing addiction.
Judge Jonathan Swift ruled today (November 13) that the specific duty of care argued by the family did not exist in the circumstances of the case and that there was insufficient evidence to show that Ashton had a gambling addiction. He also determined that the legal test of foreseeability, namely whether the harm in question could reasonably have been anticipated, had not been satisfied.
The ruling differs from conclusions reached during the inquest. In June 2023, coroner Ivan Cartwright found that Ashton had been suffering from a gambling addiction since at least 2019 and concluded that it had contributed to his death by suicide. The coroner’s report also criticised Betfair’s conduct, identifying occasions where opportunities to prevent harm may have been missed.
Today’s decision is likely to be viewed as a setback for campaigners seeking to establish greater legal accountability for gambling-related harm through negligence actions against betting operators. Annie Ashton, Luke Ashton’s widow and a prominent gambling reform campaigner, has launched a separate High Court challenge against the Gambling Commission over the regulator’s decision not to take action against Betfair following her husband’s death.
The case also comes amid wider legal scrutiny of the gambling industry. In the United States, lawsuits connected to alleged gambling addiction have been brought against Flutter-owned FanDuel but to date, no major court ruling has found in favour of a claimant alleging harm caused by online gambling in litigation against the operator. In Sweden, a court dismissed a case brought by fashion designer Per Holknekt against Kindred back in 2024.
FAQs
Why did the High Court dismiss the claim against Betfair?
Judge Jonathan Swift found that the specific duty of care relied upon by the claimants did not exist in the circumstances of the case. The court also concluded that the legal requirement of foreseeability had not been satisfied.
Did the court find that Luke Ashton had a gambling addiction?
According to Reuters’ reporting of the judgment, the judge found there was insufficient evidence to establish that Ashton had a gambling addiction.
How does the ruling differ from the coroner’s findings?
A coroner concluded in 2023 that Ashton had suffered from a gambling addiction that contributed to his death. However, an inquest does not determine civil liability, which was the issue before the High Court.
What does the ruling mean for future gambling harm litigation?
The decision is likely to be seen as a setback for campaigners seeking to establish negligence-based liability against gambling operators for gambling-related harm.
Is there any other legal action involving the case?
Yes. Luke Ashton’s widow, Annie Ashton, is separately challenging the UK Gambling Commission’s decision not to take regulatory action against Betfair following her husband’s death.
