Gambler Pursues Betfair for £1.5 Million in Betting Losses
Background of the Case
Lee Gibson, a British investor in real estate, has filed a lawsuit seeking to recover nearly £1.5 million (approximately $2 million) lost through soccer betting. Gibson claims that Betfair failed to act appropriately to prevent his gambling addiction from worsening.
Decade of Betting Activity
Over a span of ten years, from 2009 to 2019, the 47-year-old property entrepreneur reportedly placed over 30,000 bets. Despite early excitement, the gambling became financially overwhelming. Gibson asserts that Betfair ignored obvious signs of his compulsive gambling during this time.
Legal Proceedings and Initial Ruling
The lawsuit targets Flutter Entertainment, the parent company of Betfair, accusing the betting platform of neglecting its duty of care. Gibson previously lost in court when a High Court judge ruled that Betfair could not have reasonably known the depth of his gambling problem, as Gibson had consistently assured the company he could afford his gambling losses and provided documentation to support this.
Appeal and Arguments for a Different Outcome
The case is now before the Court of Appeal. Gibson, who built his wealth through property investment in Leeds after leaving school at 16, hopes for a favorable decision from three senior judges. His legal team argues that Betfair should have identified and acted on warning signs sooner, particularly as Gibson was a VIP customer with a dedicated relationship manager, indicating Betfair was fully aware of his betting patterns.
Concerns Over Betfair’s Responsibility
Gibson’s lawyers highlight that Betfair only suspended his account in March 2019, by which time he had already lost £1.5 million. His legal representative, Yash Kulkarni KC, claims Betfair had a clear responsibility to protect Gibson from harm and that the original judge overlooked regulatory licensing requirements that obligate betting operators to restrict service to customers exhibiting problematic gambling behavior.
Betfair’s Defense
Conversely, Betfair maintains that it had no explicit knowledge of Gibson’s addiction and therefore was not required to intervene based solely on assumptions. Represented by Jonathan Davies-Jones KC, Betfair insists that the initial court decision was correct and that knowing about a customer’s gambling issues does not automatically create a legal duty of care.
Potential Industry Impact
Historically, similar claims by problem gamblers seeking to reclaim losses have rarely succeeded. A successful appeal by Gibson could establish an important legal precedent affecting the practices and responsibilities of online betting companies moving forward.
