Share This Article
The Gibson vs Betfair gambling case now before the English Court of Appeal will determine whether a gambler can recover losses from an operator that allegedly breached its licence conditions—a ruling that could reshape the legal landscape for gambling operators and trigger mass claims across the UK.
Below is the article from my UK DLA Piper gambling experts Jeremy Sher, Siona Spillett and Benjamin Fellows.
A key decision on the Gibson vs Betfair gambling case is pending from the English courts on whether a gambler can recover losses from an operator that is alleged to have breached its licencing conditions. If the appellant gambler succeeds, the judgment has the potential to open the floodgates to mass claims in England against operators, as claimant firms encourage other players to seek to recover losses.
However, even if (as anticipated) the operator wins the day, the judgment will still provide critical commentary on these significant legal issues for the gambling industry and could impact gambling claims for years to come.
The facts of the Gibson vs Betfair gambling case
On 7-8 October 2025, the English Court of Appeal (CoA) heard the appeal of a gambler, Lee Gibson, of a decision of the High Court which dismissed his claims to recover his gambling losses (GBP1.5m) from Betfair.
Mr Gibson advanced claims for breach of statutory duty, breach of contract (including implied terms relating to the Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice (LCCP)), and negligence. His claim centred on whether Betfair breached its licence obligations, and whether such a breach could give rise to a personal right of action in contract or tort.
On the particular facts of the case, Mr Gibson argued that Betfair’s responsible gambling policies were inadequate and that Betfair should have done more to assess his capacity to sustain losses. While the CoA was receptive to the policy intention of protecting vulnerable gamblers, it noted that Mr Gibson had passed all AML checks and appeared able to afford his losses. Experts at trial had described Betfair’s policies as “industry leading”.
However, the points of law that the court will now decide will be of general application to operators. The CoA will rule on:
- whether Betfair knew, or ought to have known, that Mr Gibson was a problem gambler, and whether knowing that will trigger any contractual or tortious duties.
- whether compliance with the LCCP can be implied as a contractual term.
- whether it would be fair or reasonable to impose a common law duty of care on an operator, both on the facts of this case and given the difficulties in identifying problem gamblers.
- the “illegality” argument (i.e. that all bets should be void if Betfair breached its licence), albeit the Court was sceptical, noting that such an approach would have far-reaching and arguably unintended consequences.
We anticipate the judgment will be published in the next few months.
Implications for gambling operators of the Gibison vs Befair case
The outcome of the appeal is likely to reinforce the current legal position, namely that gambling operators are not generally liable for a customer’s losses unless there is clear evidence that the operator knew of a gambling problem and failed to act appropriately.
This means:
- There is still a high threshold for customer claims based on an operator’s alleged breach of its responsible gambling duties.
- To meet any such claims, operators should i) maintain robust responsible gambling policies, ii) keep a clear record of interventions and AML checks and ii) facilitate ongoing staff training and policy review.
However, Mr Gibson’s claim was fact specific. It may be that Mr Gibson’s appeal is unsuccessful but that the judgment accepts a part of the argument in principle. This is particularly so where responsible gambling policies have moved on since Mr Gibson’s time gambling, as well as the licencing framework and responsible gambling expectations generally.
Should you wish to discuss the case in more detail, please do not hesitate to contact me and I will be delighted to put you in contact with my UK DLA Piper gambling experts Jeremy Sher, Siona Spillett and Benjamin Fellows. On a similar topic, you can read the article “Advocate General of the CJEU Issues Opinion on Claims for Gambling Losses“.