Betfair Player Sues Operator for £1.5m; Case Goes to Court of Appeal

The UK’s Court of Appeal is hearing a case of a Betfair customer suing the operator for £1.5m lost on bets on football, with the plaintiff arguing the operator should have returned his losses due to alleged knowledge that he was a problem gambler.

Property tycoon Lee Gibson lost the money when making more than 30,000 wagers between 2009 and 2019, before Betfair, which is listed in the case as TSE Malta LP, suspended his account. According to Gibson, Betfair declined to stop his gambling sooner despite the fact it should have known he was not gambling responsibly.

Case for the plaintiff

Last year, a High Court judge rejected the case, but it is now being heard by three judges at the Court of Appeal. Yash Kulkarni KC, representing Gibson, said his client’s betting was focused on correct score markets in football, sometimes in sums up to £20,000.

According to Kulkarni, Betfair “knew or ought to have known” that Gibson was a “problem gambler” and that it had a duty to closely monitor his gambling activity after treating him as a VIP and providing him with his own relationship manager.

Kulkarni said: “The evidence showed that Betfair knew or had information available to them showing that Mr Gibson was chasing his losses, had borrowed money or sold something to gamble, and was gambling at a level beyond that which he could afford from his income after tax and expenses.”

Why Betfair won last time

When the case was heard in the High Court last year, Judge Nigel Bird was unconvinced Betfair should have known Gibson was a problem gambler, on the basis that he hid the problem himself.

In his ruling, Judge Bird said: “The fact that he consistently satisfied anti-money laundering checks makes it impossible for Mr Gibson to argue that the size of his losses was, of itself, enough to raise reasonable concerns. Indeed, even after the trial, there is no real suggestion that Mr Gibson could not afford his gambling.

“He could, at least on the face of the information he gave to Betfair, afford to fund his gambling. He misled Betfair about his gambling and it is very difficult to identify a problem gambler who is not being honest.”

At the Court of Appeal, Kulkarni is arguing this judgment was wrong, and that Gibson’s frequency of betting should have been flagged as a problem by Betfair. “Mr Gibson placed at least 20,000 individual bets in the six years prior to 22 January 2021, which is more than five per day,” he said.

Betfair’s defence

Representing Betfair, Jonathan Davies-Jones KC argued Betfair “applied appropriate policies and procedures to meet its obligations.” Davies-Jones said: “On the facts, the judge was right – and clearly entitled – to conclude that Betfair had neither actual or constructive knowledge of Mr Gibson’s moderate gambling disorder and/or Mr Gibson’s ‘gambling problem’.”

What happens next?

Judgment on the case is expected to be provided at a later date. The impact of this case could have a much wider impact on the industry if Betfair were to lose. A ruling in Gibson’s favour would set a precedent that players can claim back losses if they can prove the operator was not acting responsibly or taking due care of a problem gambler while the betting activity in question was ongoing.