Appeal Court judges have been asked to determine the minimum duty of care required by online gambling licences in order to re-open a £1.4m compensation claim against Betfair
The Court of Appeal of England & Wales will examine a request by a former customer of Betfair who seeks £1.4m in damages related to the business’ failure to intervene on his problem gambling behaviours.
The appeal, scheduled for October 2025, sees self-made property millionaire Lee Gibson contest a High Court ruling from November 2024, which denied his claim to recover losses incurred on the Betfair Exchange between 2009 and 2019.
Gibson, a property developer from Leeds, maintains that Betfair (Flutter Entertainment) failed in its duty of care by allowing him to place tens of thousands of high-value football bets despite clear indicators of harm. His legal team argues that Betfair and its VIP management “knew or ought to have known” he was a problem gambler and should have suspended his account far earlier.
For Gibson’s case to be re-opened, judges have been asked to determine a first-of-its-kind ruling to define the extent to which operators owe a duty of care to protect customers from self-inflicted financial harm.
“This case is a landmark test for the sector,” said Gibson’s barrister, Yash Kulkarni KC, opening the appeal.
“The court must determine what duties an online operator owes to a customer who is clearly betting prolifically, suffering heavy losses, and funding those losses through borrowing or the sale of assets.”
Lawyers for Gibson have asked the Court to order a re-hearing, arguing that the High Court “failed to recognise that Betfair had assumed a special responsibility” through its allocation of a VIP relationship manager. They claim the manager’s role to maintain and increase Gibson’s betting activity gave rise to a duty to protect him from foreseeable financial harm.
The High Court’s 2024 judgment sided with Betfair, finding no evidence that the operator knew Gibson was suffering from a gambling disorder. Judge Nigel Bird concluded that Gibson had repeatedly assured Betfair of his financial standing and “took steps actively to hide his problem and to portray a wholly inaccurate picture.”
“Mr Gibson consistently and often reassured Betfair that he was able to fund his gambling, including his losses,” Judge Bird wrote. “The fact that he satisfied anti-money-laundering checks makes it impossible for him to argue that the size of his losses alone should have raised reasonable concern.”
Of significance to that ruling, Gibson had passed all AML and compliance checks and even provided proof of funds when his account was suspended in 2018. He declined to use responsible-gambling tools such as deposit limits or self-exclusion, and the court found Betfair could not reasonably have known intervention was required.
In 2020 new controls and protections were applied to customer accounts as UK licences applied a new “VIP Code of Conduct” overseen by the Betting and Gaming Council (BGC). New rules saw operators impose a ban on incentive rewards to encourage further gambling. VIP customers were required to undergo enhanced checks, and were no longer applicable for customers aged under-25
Flutter notes that it has “completely restructured its approach to customer risk since 2019”, introducing centralised monitoring systems and affordability assessments across all brands.
In the current appeal, Kulkarni KC told the judges that the lower-court decision was “plainly wrong” and that Betfair had breached its licence duty to refuse service to customers who appeared likely to be problem gamblers.
Betfair, operated by Flutter Entertainment’s TSE Malta LP, rejects the allegations and will urge the Court of Appeal to uphold the earlier ruling.
“Mr Gibson repeatedly misled our staff about his financial position and the source of his funds,” a Betfair spokesperson said.
“Our teams carried out the required checks and reminded him of the available player-protection tools. We acted appropriately and within our licence obligations at all times.”
The three-judge panel of Sir Julian Flaux, Lord Justice Popplewell and Lord Justice Birss is expected to reserve judgment until later this year.
“The outcome will help clarify the boundaries of personal responsibility and operator duty in a regulated market,” commented one legal observer following the proceedings. “It’s the first time the Court of Appeal has been asked to define what care, if any, an operator owes to a customer losing money on their own decisions.”
