A property tycoon’s £1.5m problem gambling case against Betfair has failed in court for a second time.

Lee Gibson, a millionaire with a buy-to-rent property empire under his name, filed a commercial complaint against the operator in an effort to try to recoup his losses incurred between 2009 and 2019. 

The businessman built his case around the argument that Betfair failed to uphold its player protection obligations relating to problem gambling identification and prevention.

Gibson’s initial filing was dismissed by the High Court of England and Wales in November last year, with the final ruling stating: “The Court found….that Betfair did not know, nor ought they have known, that Mr Gibson was a problem gambler: he portrayed himself to them as a wealthy man and able to afford his losses.”

The tycoon then appealed the court’s decision earlier this year, challenging the first case that found no duty of care or licensing breaches.

However, Gibson has once again been served a cold dish by the three judges reviewing the appeal, Chancellor of the High Court Sir Colin Birss, Lord Justice Popplewell and Sir Julian Flaux, who reached the same conclusion.

According to the legal trio, Judge Nigel Bird, who rejected the case last year, had taken all relevant evidence into consideration and his judgement has therefore been a “reasonable conclusion” to Gibson’s claims.

“I can see no justification for allowing the appeal against the conclusion that Betfair neither knew nor ought to have known that Mr Gibson was a problem gambler,” Sir Colin Birss said in the final ruling.

Deliberating on problem gambling

In a legal context, the problem gambler argument could stand in court if the player in question has exhibited signs of financial distress and spent above their means. Given Gibson’s accumulated considerable wealth, the court found that he brushed off the financial checks imposed by Betfair.

Another legal leverage would be if the person in question had self-excluded themselves from a website, but the operator kept contacting them or allowed them access to its platform. 

In Gibson’s case, the judge stated that although expert psychiatrists confirmed that he was a problem gambler, he kept that fact to himself whilst continuing to use Betfair’s services.

The court also concluded that Gibson had done little to make his experiences of problem gambling known, determining that him telling “an unnamed man in a Betfair hospitality box at Old Trafford and the landlord of his local pub” as not strong enough grounds for his claims.

This raises a very interesting question regarding VIP players. If a wealthy individual is suffering from problem gambling but keeps acing the financial risk checks and anti-money laundering procedures in place to protect players, does that automatically put them at a higher risk than the average person?

The financial thresholds currently imposed by the UK Gambling Commission (UKGC) require operators to initiate instant financial checks when a certain spending limit is reached, but there is not much to do if they find out that the customer can afford that.

If it is determined that a customer can afford it, it is an open book as to whether a company continues doing business with said customer – they can continue to do so, or determine that the person is a problem gambler and should be refused despite being able to afford it.

Having that in mind, perhaps the next talking point should address what the legislature can do to bring additional safety nets for such specific instances.