The UK’s High Court sided with sports betting and gambling company Flutter Entertainment in a landmark case that concluded on Friday (November 15).
The case came about after a man in the UK sued the company’s Betfair brand and its TSE Malta holding company in 2021 for over £1.4 million (roughly $1.7M) in losses.
He alleged the brand knew he was a problem gambler and they failed to take appropriate steps to protect him from losing money.
It was between 1 November 2009 and 11 April 2019 when the man lost £1,480,728.84 gambling on the outcome of sporting events, he then sought to recover the greater part of those losses from Betfair.
The hearing dates spanned several days in July of this year, with the High Court Judge Bird now sharing the 46-page judgment. Within it, the Judge dismisses the man’s claims in its entirety.
The conclusion states: “…Given my findings I do not propose to deal with quantum issues, issues of contributory negligence or issues of limitation. I am grateful to all counsel for their assistance.”
This case is one of the more high-profile problem gambling cases seen in the UK, with the last being the 2008 Calvert v William Hill decision.
Gaming solicitors say High Court judgment in gambling case would be ‘welcomed by operators’
In a legal update, gaming solicitors from Wiggin LLP said: “Yesterday’s 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.
“Moreover, the relationship enshrined in the Act between the industry and the Gambling Commission was confirmed in that the Court clearly stated where non-compliance is identified (which it wasn’t here), this did not in itself afford the consumer a course of action against the operator within the courts. Rather, this would be a matter for the “specialist regulator”.
Featured Image: Image Credit to Allen Allen, Flickr
