A wealthy individual who spent close to £1.5 million on football bets is challenging a court decision against Betfair, alleging the company allowed him to gamble excessively. The outcome of this legal battle could potentially impact the responsibilities that online betting firms owe to their customers.
Lee Gibson, aged 47, argues that Betfair should have intervened earlier, claiming they were aware of his gambling issues. He disclosed placing over 30,000 bets with Betfair between 2009 and 2019. Seeking £1 million in damages, which approximates his losses before filing the lawsuit in 2021, Gibson’s case was dismissed by a High Court judge previously but is now being reconsidered by three senior judges.
Gibson, who amassed his fortune through property investments in Leeds despite leaving school at 16, emphasized his betting activity on football “correct score” markets, even in lesser-known matches, with stakes reaching £20,000. His legal representative, Yash Kulkarni KC, contended that Betfair should have recognized Gibson’s gambling problem, pointing out the company’s VIP treatment and personalized account management as indications of their duty of care.
Describing his initial excitement turning into unsustainable losses in March 2019, Gibson’s gambling escalated over the years, culminating in a substantial sum lost. Despite being identified as a VIP client and receiving exclusive perks, Gibson’s financial sources were questioned by Betfair under anti-money laundering regulations, to which he cited his property portfolio.
Following the initial ruling where Betfair was absolved of responsibility, Mr. Kulkarni argued at the Court of Appeal that Betfair should have been aware of Gibson’s potential gambling addiction given his extensive betting history and financial activities. He disputed the judge’s findings regarding the VIP program and asserted that Betfair failed in ensuring Gibson’s financial well-being amidst his gambling habits.
Betfair, represented as TSE Malta LP in the lawsuit, is contesting the appeal, supported by its legal team upholding the initial ruling. The Court of Appeal is expected to deliver its verdict at a later date.