Well, that was fast. Lee Gibson's case against Betfair has been swiftly rejected by the UK's Court of Appeal.
Indeed, the punter sought to recover £1.5m (US$2m) in losses - accrued over a 10-year period - by taking Betfair to court in October. Gibson's case was heard by three judges in early Q4, after having been rejected by a high court judge last year. However, Judge Nigel Bird was satisfied that he had adequately previously reassured Betfair that he could afford his losses, stating that, "even after the trial, there is no real suggestion that Mr Gibson could not afford his gambling."
This ruling was appealed on five counts unsuccessfully, with numerous regulatory personnel remaining satisfied that the operator's licence conditions were fully upheld, and the original judge's decision was reached under acceptable conditional requirements.
More specifically, Judge Bird continued: "The fact that he consistently satisfied anti money-laundering checks (and raises no complaint about that) makes it impossible for Mr Gibson to argue that the size of his losses was, of itself, enough to raise reasonable concerns."
Gibson argues that Betfair should have taken additional action to prevent him from gambling - reaffirming that he was known to the operator to be a problem gambler. Nevertheless, these arguments remained unsatisfactory to the court given the context of his financial position and the amount of funds he sought to recover.
This legal update falls in the wake of separate regulatory scrutiny in the Australian market for Betfair, where the operator was fined AU$870,000 (US$577,480) for spam law breaches this summer.
This intriguing case is one that many anticipated would be a landmark for player loss appeals, and one that has - evidently - ended up swinging the way of the operators
