Gambler Sues Betfair to Recover £1.5M in Losses

British real estate investor Lee Gibson, who lost nearly GBP 1.5 million ($2 million) betting on soccer, is taking Betfair back to court, arguing that the gambling giant should have done more to stop him from spiraling into addiction.

30,000 Bets Over a Decade 

The 47-year-old buy-to-let property tycoon claims the company ignored clear signs of problem gambling, despite placing more than 30,000 bets over ten years, between 2009 and 2019. 

Initially, the multimillionaire found the gambling “enthralling and exciting”, but, in time, his losses started to become “unsustainable”. 

His lawsuit targets Flutter Entertainment, Betfair’s parent company, and accuses the betting exchange of failing in its duty of care.

Gibson already lost his case once. Last year, High Court Judge Nigel Bird ruled that Betfair couldn’t reasonably have known the extent of his gambling problem, since Gibson had “consistently and often reassured Betfair that he was able to fund his gambling” and even provided documents to support that claim.

Hoping for a Historical Decision

Now, the case is headed to the Court of Appeal, where Gibson, who left school at 16 and built his fortune by purchasing and renovating properties in Leeds, hopes for a different outcome from the three top judges that will ponder his bid for GBP 1 million ($1.33 million) in damages. 

His legal team argues that Betfair should have recognized his behavior as a red flag and intervened sooner, especially given his status as a VIP customer with an assigned “relationship manager,” which made it clear the company was fully aware of his betting activity. 

According to Gibson’s lawyers, Betfair only suspended his account in March 2019, after he had already lost GBP 1.5 million.

“Betfair had a clear duty to protect Mr. Gibson from harm,” said his lawyer, Yash Kulkarni KC, who also argued that the original judge failed to recognize that gambling operators are required, under licensing conditions, to refuse service to customers who appear to have a problem.

Betfair, however, sees things differently, with representative Jonathan Davies-Jones KC telling the Court of Appeal that Betfair had no actual knowledge of Gibson’s addiction and, therefore, no obligation to intervene based on speculation alone. 

Davies-Jones KC went on to argue that the original judgment in court was sound, adding that even if Betfair had known about Gibson’s gambling issues, it wouldn’t automatically establish legal grounds for a duty of care claim.

Past attempts initiated by problem gamblers to recover losses have mostly failed over the years, which means a win for Gibson could set a significant precedent for the online betting industry.