Court of Appeal Dismisses Gibson v Betfair
What This Landmark Ruling Really Means for Gamblers and the Betting Industry
The Court of Appeal recently delivered its long awaited decision in Gibson v TSE Malta LP (t/a Betfair), a case that many in the gambling world had their eyes on.
For years it was seen as a potential watershed moment: could customers reclaim large historic losses by arguing that a betting operator should have intervened?
On 8 December 2025 the Court of Appeal dismissed Lee Gibson’s appeal. The result is decisive and has implications for bettors, operators and the wider discussion about responsibility within gambling.
This blog breaks down the ruling in a clear and practical way, with SEO optimised structure for maximum reach.
What Was the Gibson Case About?
Lee Gibson had accumulated approximately £1.5 million in losses on the Betfair Exchange over several years. He argued that Betfair should have recognised he was a problem gambler and intervened. He tried to recover his losses by claiming that Betfair owed him a duty of care under contract and negligence because of the regulatory framework in the UK.
This wasn’t a case about fraud or system errors. It was about whether a major operator should bear legal responsibility for a customer’s betting activity based on their oversight obligations.
Why the Case Was Seen as Potentially Landmark
If Gibson had succeeded, it could have opened the door to many customers seeking to reclaim historic losses by arguing the platform failed to identify gambling harm. Traditional bookmakers and exchanges would have faced a wave of claims.
Operators were concerned because:
- UK gambling licences include responsible gambling requirements
- These obligations have grown significantly over the last decade
- Compliance failures can lead to regulatory fines
But the question before the court was narrower: do these regulatory duties create a legal duty of care owed directly to customers?
The Court of Appeal has now answered this clearly.
The Court’s Key Finding: No Legal Duty of Care Owed
The judges held that Betfair did not know and could not reasonably have known that Gibson was suffering from gambling addiction.
More importantly, they confirmed:
- Gambling Commission regulations do not automatically create a civil duty of care
- Operators are not legally responsible for protecting individuals from their own betting losses unless they have specific knowledge of risk
- Customers’ own representations about affordability and behaviour matter
Gibson routinely reassured Betfair he was comfortable with his activity and passed the platform’s checks. That evidence was central to the ruling.
What This Means for Gamblers
The ruling is significant for individuals who might consider legal action to recover losses. In practice:
- Courts will not treat heavy betting or large losses as proof of addiction
- Claimants must show the operator actually knew there was harm
- Regulatory duties are not the same as legal duties owed to customers
- Reviewing or refunding historic gambling losses remains highly unlikely
This aligns with previous attempts by bettors to sue bookmakers for failing to stop them, many of which were unsuccessful.
What This Means for Betting Operators
For operators, the ruling is a relief but not an excuse for complacency. The Gambling Commission still enforces social responsibility codes aggressively and fines remain severe for failures.
However, this judgment clarifies:
- Regulatory compliance issues are public law matters, not private liability
- Exchanges and bookmakers will not be forced to reimburse betting losses unless there is evidence of clear wrongdoing
- Customer monitoring systems remain essential but do not create civil liability by default
This will reassure compliance teams and legal departments across the sector.
Why This Case Matters for the Future of UK Gambling
The UK’s regulatory landscape is shifting, with affordability checks, online risk assessments and operator accountability under constant debate.
The Gibson decision draws a boundary between:
- Regulatory enforcement, which can lead to fines and licence conditions
- Private legal claims, which require a duty of care the courts are reluctant to impose
This distinction will continue to shape the relationship between customers and gambling companies.
For social policy, it means the courts are unwilling to make gambling operators financially responsible for problem gambling beyond existing regulatory structures. Future reforms will likely come from legislation rather than case law.
Final Thoughts
The Court of Appeal’s dismissal of Gibson v Betfair is a decisive moment for the industry. It reinforces that personal responsibility remains central to betting and that regulatory duties do not translate into automatic legal liability.
For the gambling sector, the ruling restores clarity at a time when compliance expectations are increasing. For bettors, it highlights the importance of understanding the risks and managing their own activity rather than relying on retrospective legal remedies.