An appeal case at Betfair could disrupt online gambling after £1.5m losses

Photo of author

By [email protected]


An appeal case at Betfair could disrupt online gambling after £1.5m losses. Image of a person playing Betfair on a tablet

Lee Gibson, the millionaire “problem gambler” who lost nearly £1.5 million ($2 million) on soccer bets, is trying to overturn a High Court ruling after going after Betfair for allowing him to gamble, in a landmark case that could change online betting as we know it.

Gibson claims the betting platform had a duty to protect him from himself, because they were aware of the gambling-related harms he was suffering.

Flutter Entertainment is the parent company of Betfair, with other brands such as Paddy Power and FanDuel in its stable. The former was named after Official NFL Sportsbook Partner In the United Kingdom and Ireland last month.

The 47-year-old property tycoon placed more than 30,000 individual bets with Betfair between 2009 and 2019.

The businessman is trying to appeal the court’s decision on Betfair

Gibson is now aiming to recover around £1m, with the case potentially having consequences for the fees betting companies have to provide to customers.

Last year in the UK Supreme Court, Judge Nigel Baird dismissed the caseBut the appeal will be heard this week.

Judge Baird was not convinced that Betfair should have been aware of Gibson’s gambling problem, as he had tried to hide it.

“Mr Gibson constantly and often reassured Betfair that he was able to fund his gambling, including his losses, and none of the information he provided to Betfair painted a different picture,” the judge said.

“The fact that he was consistently meeting anti-money laundering checks makes it impossible for Mr Gibson to argue that the scale of his losses was in itself sufficient to raise reasonable concerns.

“Indeed, even after the trial, there is nothing to suggest that Mr. Gibson could not afford to gamble.”

Gibson was a VIP client and had a dedicated ‘relationship manager’ for Betfair

However, this was rejected by Yash Kulkarni KC, Mr Gibson’s barrister, who stated on appeal: “The judge should have found that Betfair knew or should have known that Mr Gibson was likely to be a troublesome gambler throughout the material time of the prosecution, and his conclusion to the contrary was clearly erroneous.

He continued: “Mr Gibson placed at least 20,000 individual bets in the six years prior to 22 January 2021, that is more than five per day.”

“The judge should have gone on to hold that where a person appears likely to gamble profusely despite having suffered heavy losses, using money that seems likely to be at least partly from selling their business assets or lending money against them, that person is likely to be a problem gambler.”

Another side of the issue is that Betfair treats Gibson as a VIP client With a dedicated Relationship Manager.

For this reason, Kulkarni asserts, the company had a duty to take proper care of him.

The bookmaker’s business was said to focus on the right football market, often in “mystery games” for amounts of up to £20,000 (US$26,745).

Kulkarni added: “The evidence showed that Betfair knew or had information available to them showing that Mr Gibson was chasing his losses, had borrowed money or sold something to gamble, and was gambling at a level beyond what he could sustain on his income after taxes and expenses.”

Gibson made his fortune by purchasing and renovating properties in the city of Leeds, in northern England.

He began his relationship with the platform in 2009, using Betfair Exchange, and incurred losses of £100,000 within three years, although his account was sometimes in credit.

By 2015, losses had increased to £500,000, then reached £1 million by the beginning of 2018.

By the time Betfair permanently suspended his account in March 2019, arrears had increased to almost £1.5 million.

Betfair is asking the Court of Appeal to uphold the initial ruling, represented by Jonathan Davies-Jones KC.

“In light of Mr Gibson’s repeated assertions that he was wealthy and in control of his gambling, and the contemporaneous documentation provided by Mr Gibson to Betfair, the factual premise of the alleged duty of care – that Betfair had actual or constructive knowledge of Mr Gibson’s gambling problem – fails.”

The final ruling is expected to be issued at a later date.

Featured Image: Flickrlicensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

this post An appeal case at Betfair could disrupt online gambling after £1.5m losses appeared first on Read and write.



[og_img]

Source link

Leave a Comment