High Court sides with Flutter in landmark problem gambling case

The UK’s High Court sided with Flutter Entertainment on Friday (15 November) in a landmark case that probed whether operators owe a duty of care to their customers.

Property developer Lee Gibson first sued Flutter’s Betfair brand and its TSE Malta holding company in 2021 for over £1.4m in losses, alleging staff had helped him circumvent problem gambling safeguards.

In the 46-page judgement, High Court Judge Bird dismissed Gibson’s claims in their entirety, stating Betfair neither violated the Gambling Commission’s Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice (LCCP), nor owed a general duty of care to its players.  

The decision marks the conclusion to one of the most high-profile problem gambling cases in the UK courts since the 2008 Calvert v William Hill decision.

That case saw a professional greyhound trainer and gambling addict fail to recoup over £2.1m in gambling spend despite the court’s ruling the bookmaker had failed in its duty of care towards its customer.

Wiggin LLP: Flutter decision clarifies law

Following the latest decision, gaming solicitors Wiggin LLP said: “[The] judgment – which upholds a clear distinction between the applicable regulatory and contractual regimes – 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.

“Many operators, who are in regular receipt of cookie-cutter claims from opportunistic consumers represented by a small number of law firms, have been waiting for a case that confirmed the decision laid down in Calvert. 

“It is confirmed that operators do not generally owe their customers a duty of care and the courts will not allow one to be established, particularly so soon after the recent review of the Gambling Act rejected the notion.”

Wiggin added that the relationship enshrined in law between the industry and the Gambling Commission was confirmed.

This, it argued, means that where non-compliance in the industry is identified – which it wasn’t in this case – there would be no course of action for losing players to take directly against the operator.

Instead, it would be a matter for the “specialist regulator”, added Wiggin.

The confirmation of the prior case law likely means operators in the UK market will face less legal risk moving forward that their European counterparts.

Many of these businesses have been hit with judgements forcing them to repay customers historic losses for either social responsibility failings, or operating in a pre-regulation environment.

Share