The UK Court of Appeal has dismissed a claim seeking to impose a wide-ranging civil “duty of care” on gambling operators for customer losses.

The ruling centred on a case brought against Betfair by Lee Gibson, a millionaire with a buy-to-rent property empire under his name, who attempted to recover almost £1.5m in gambling losses incurred between 2009 and 2019.

The court found that Betfair was not negligent and had no legal responsibility for the claimant’s losses, confirming that operator liability for problem gambling remains confined to exceptional circumstances.

The judgment and its implications were examined on the latest episode of the iGaming Daily podcast, hosted by Charlie Horner with SBC Media‘s Editor-at-Large, Ted Menmuir, and Tamzin Blow, Partner at CMS Law and a member of the International Masters of Gaming Law (IMGL).

A central issue was whether Betfair “should have known” the claimant was experiencing gambling harm. The Court of Appeal rejected this argument, concluding that the operator had neither actual nor constructive knowledge of addiction.

Without clear evidence that the operator was aware, or should reasonably have been aware, of harm, the negligence claim could not succeed.

Blow noted that the claim attempted to push negligence law beyond its established limits, stating: “Establishing that there would be a duty of care for gambling operators was really a journey to the outermost reaches of the tort of negligence and to the realm of the truly exceptional.”

The discussion also addressed the ongoing confusion between regulatory enforcement and civil claims. The trio stressed that breaches of the Gambling Commission’s Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice (LCCP) do not automatically give rise to civil liability or invalidate betting contracts.

In the Gibson case, the court accepted that the claimant appeared financially capable of sustaining his gambling activity and had not placed Betfair on notice of addiction-related concerns. As Menmuir observed, compliance failures alone are insufficient; claimants must show ignored or obvious indicators of harm.

While the ruling will be welcomed by operators, the three emphasised it does not weaken regulatory obligations. Operators remain responsible for monitoring risk and intervening where appropriate.