British real estate investor Lee Gibson has filed a lawsuit against Betfair for losing £1.5 million on the platform, claiming that the company should have recognized his problem gambling behavior and intervened earlier. The case has been dismissed by the High Court and is now in the Court of Appeal. Gibson bet more than 30,000 times between 2009 and 2019, mainly betting on the football "correct score" market, raising gambling funds by remortgaging and selling properties during this period. The High Court judge believed that Betfair could not reasonably be aware of his gambling problem, as Gibson always claimed he could afford the losses and passed all anti-money laundering checks. The focus of the appeal is whether Betfair has a duty of care to high-value customers, and the outcome could significantly impact the online gambling industry.
Case Background and Litigation Process
British Leeds real estate investor Lee Gibson sued gambling company Betfair for compensation for his £1.5 million gambling losses. The case began after his account was closed in 2019, and it has been dismissed by the High Court and is currently being heard by the Court of Appeal.
47-year-old Gibson claimed that Betfair should have realized he was a problem gambler and taken early intervention measures to prevent him from falling into financial crisis, but the High Court dismissed the lawsuit in November 2024.
Gambling Behavior and Financial Losses
Over ten years from 2009 to 2019, Gibson bet more than 30,000 times on Betfair's platform, mainly focusing on the football "correct score" market, including some lesser-known matches. His single bet amount sometimes reached £20,000, showing high-frequency and high-stake betting characteristics.
As his gambling behavior intensified, Gibson began remortgaging and selling his real estate assets to raise gambling funds. Losses gradually increased from £100,000 in 2012 to £500,000 in 2015, reaching £1 million by early 2018, and nearly £1.5 million by the time his account was closed in 2019.
High Court Ruling and Reasons
High Court Judge Nigel Bird dismissed Gibson's lawsuit in November 2024, ruling that Betfair could not reasonably be aware of his gambling problem. The judge noted, "Mr. Gibson consistently assured Betfair that he could afford the gambling losses, and all the information he provided was completely contrary to this. He misled Betfair about his gambling problem, making it difficult to identify a dishonest problem gambler."
Appeal Focus and Legal Arguments
Gibson's legal team appealed to the Court of Appeal, arguing that Betfair failed to act on clear signs of problem gambling, violating their duty of care. Lawyer Yash Kulkarni KC pointed out that given Gibson's frequent betting, increasing losses, and asset liquidation behavior, Betfair "knew or should have known" about his excessive gambling problem.
The appeal claims that after assigning a personal VIP "relationship manager" to Gibson, Betfair had a duty to protect him from harm and ensure that gambling convenience did not cause financial losses due to problem gambling.
Betfair's Defense Position
Betfair (registered name TSE Malta LP) objected to these allegations, asking the Court of Appeal to uphold the original verdict. Representative lawyer Jonathan Davies-Jones KC stated that the company complied with all "policies and procedures" specified by the licensing obligations.
The defense argued that there was no evidence that Betfair had actual or presumed knowledge of Gibson's gambling barrier, and pointed out that he repeatedly portrayed himself as wealthy and self-controlled, even if the company was aware of the problem, it did not create a legal obligation to prevent losses.
VIP Treatment and Customer Relationship
As a high-stake bettor, Gibson was considered a VIP customer by Betfair, enjoying benefits such as football hospitality events and golf outings. These perks gradually decreased over time, but the presence of a VIP relationship manager became a key factor in the dispute over duty of care in the appeal.
When asked about the source of his betting funds, Gibson claimed he was a landlord with substantial assets and had passed the company's anti-money laundering verification process.
Potential Industry Impact of the Case
Legal experts say the verdict in this case could have a significant impact on the online gambling industry, determining whether gambling companies have a legal duty of care to high-value customers to prevent excessive losses. The Court of Appeal's decision could redefine the responsibilities of gambling operators in identifying and intervening in problem gambling.
The Court of Appeal, presided over by Sir Julian Flaux, Lord Popplewell, and Lord Birss, is expected to make a decision in the coming months, with the industry closely watching the development of this case.
Challenges in Identifying Problem Gambling
The case highlights the practical difficulties gambling companies face in identifying problem gambling. High Court Judge pointed out that Gibson actively concealed the severity of the problem, describing to Betfair and others a "completely inaccurate financial situation," making identification work more complicated.
This deliberate misleading behavior makes it difficult for gambling companies to distinguish between genuine problem gamblers and ordinary gamblers with high risk tolerance, increasing the operators' judgment difficulty.
Legal and Regulatory Framework
The appeal involves the interpretation of the requirements of the gambling company's operating license, which stipulates that operators should "refuse to provide services to customers who may be problem gamblers based on all relevant information sources." The interpretation and application of this clause are the legal focus of the dispute between the parties.
The outcome of the case may affect the UK Gambling Commission's regulatory guidance on operator responsibilities and the legal handling of similar cases in the future.
Investor Background and Financial Condition
Despite dropping out of school at 16, Gibson built a successful real estate business in Leeds, owning up to 16 rental properties at its peak. This successful background made his gambling behavior more concealed, as he appeared to have the ability to bear losses on the surface.
The real estate background also facilitated his fundraising for gambling, maintaining his gambling habit by mortgaging and selling assets, and concealing the severity of the problem.
