The Court of Appeal has rejected a lawsuit against Betfair from a long term customer who lost about £1.48 million over ten years. The case, called Gibson v Betfair, focused on whether the company should have spotted signs of problem gambling and acted sooner.

The judges decided that Betfair did not know and could not have known that the customer was a problem gambler, even though experts later said he had a gambling disorder by 2015.

Why the Court Rejected the Claim

Gibson argued that Betfair had a duty of care under the Gambling Commission’s Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice. He said the company should have noticed his gambling behaviour and stopped him from losing large amounts of money. He also claimed that bets placed during any time Betfair might have failed in its social responsibility duties should be treated as illegal and void.

However, the trial judge, HHJ Bird, rejected these arguments at the first hearing. The judge found that Betfair regularly carried out anti money laundering checks, collected information about Gibson’s income and property, and believed he could afford his gambling. The court also noted that Gibson often told Betfair he was comfortable with his betting and, in some cases, misled the company to keep his account active.

Losses Alone Do Not Prove Problem Gambling

A key part of the Court of Appeal’s decision was that losing large amounts of money or betting frequently does not automatically mean someone is a problem gambler. The judges said that during the years in question, it was very difficult to identify problem gambling using data alone. They also noted that the rules in the Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice before 2019 were much less strict than the rules that apply today.

Since the appeal failed on the question of whether Betfair had enough knowledge to act, the Court of Appeal did not rule on the wider negligence arguments. The judges added that the question of whether gambling operators owe a general duty of care to problem gamblers should be considered in a case where that issue is directly raised.

No Evidence That Bets Were Legally Void

Gibson also argued that his bets should be cancelled because Betfair may have broken licence rules. The Court of Appeal rejected this claim. They explained that section 33 of the Gambling Act 2005, which covers unlicensed gambling, does not automatically make bets void.

The judges also said that Parliament has only given the Gambling Commission limited powers to cancel unfair bets. This shows that lawmakers did not intend for all bets to be cancelled just because a casino might have broken a licence rule.