Court dismisses gambling loss lawsuit against Betfair
A former customer sought to recoup a decade’s gambling losses, which he said were incurred due to failings in problem gambling safeguards.
UK.- A court has rejected a property magnate’s £1.5m lawsuit against Betfair over alleged failings in problem gambling safeguards. It’s the second time that a court has dismissed buy-to-rent landlord Lee Gibson‘s attempt to recoup losses incurred over a decade between 2009 and 2019.
The High Court of England and Wales dismissed Gibson’s claim to recoup gambling losses in November 2024. In the ruling, the judge concluded that Betfair ”did not know, nor ought they have known” that Gibson was a problem gambler since he portrayed himself as a wealthy man “able to afford his losses.”
However, Gibson launched an appeal against that verdict earlier this year, arguing that the judgment had wrongly concluded there was no duty of care or breach of licensing requirements. He stood by his claim that Betfair had breached its obligations to identify and prevent problem gambling.
That appeal has now been rejected. Chancellor of the High Court Sir Colin Birss, Lord Justice Popplewell and Sir Julian Flaux upheld the original findings, finding that the presiding judge had considered all relevant evidence and reached a “reasonable conclusion.”
“I can see no justification for allowing the appeal against the conclusion that Betfair neither knew nor ought to have known that Mr Gibson was a problem gambler,” Sir Colin Birss said.
The case has brought renewed attention to the issue of problem gambling among VIP customers, who may be wealthy enough to pass affordability checks, thus allowing high gambling losses.
For claims of problem gambling to succeed in court, a player must demonstrate financial distress or spending beyond their means that went undetected or ignored by an operator. However, Gibson’s high net worth allowed him to pass Betfair’s financial checks without raising red flags.
He had not self-excluded and had not disclosed that he was a problem gambler other than in unverifiable admissions to “an unnamed man in a Betfair hospitality box at Old Trafford” and to “the landlord of his local pub”.
Under Gambling Commission rules on financial checks, operators can exercise their own discretion if a customer is deemed able to afford their spending. Some suggest mandatory intervention should be enforced even in cases where players appear to be able to afford their losses.
