Disgruntled gambling customers have long sought solace in complaints – but what recourse does the high street operator have when customers get litigious? Richard Bradley, partner for gambling licensing firm Poppleston Allen, shares a success story.

As many of you will know, last year the Gambling Commission conducted a number of compliance assessments of Adult Gaming Centre (AGC) venues. 

Back in November, we published an article regarding the rise of customer complaints received by operators and we provided some insights as to how they should be managed. 

In our experience we are seeing more complaints which allege a failure to protect individuals from the potential harms associated with gambling, such as failing to interact or place appropriate safeguards in place.

Occasionally we do see complaints escalate to more formal Court proceedings and litigation presents its own set of challenges for licensees as to how they should be managed. 

Whilst it does remain vital that operators are conscious of the Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice along with the Gambling Commission’s guidance for customer interaction for premises-based operations, the recent case may provide some comfort.

In 2024, the High Court handed down its judgment in a case brought against Betfair by a Mr Gibson, which reaffirmed the previous case of Calvert v William Hill [2008] that gambling operators do not owe a general duty of care to protect their customers from gambling related harm.  This case hopefully provides some clarity between obligations to customers and the regulatory requirements.

Mr Gibson lost approximately £1.4m on the outcome of sporting events over a period of many years and sought to recover a significant proportion of the losses from the licensee.  The complainant alleged that he was a problem gambler, that the operator knew or ought to have known this was the case, that the failure to protect him from harm, and ultimately losing money,  was a breach of the conditions attached to the operating licence and that this breach provided a personal right of legal action and a claim for damages. 

Whilst the Court made judgments on several specific elements of the case, key aspects identify:

i. Licensees’ obligations around preventing harm, as prescribed by the LCCP, are not generally part of the terms and conditions with a customer and do not form part of the contract between the customer and the licensee. Therefore the LCCP obligations, such as with interaction, should not be the subject of a contractual claim.

ii. Operators do not generally owe a common law duty of care to prevent customers from suffering harm due to their own actions. 

iii. The Gambling Act 2005 provides that where non-compliance is established, this is a matter for the specialist regulator (The Gambling Commission) and does not automatically provide consumers with a course of action against the operator within the Courts.

It is worth noting that the complainant had not asked to be self-excluded or have any restrictions placed on his gambling activities and the operator had detailed records of its customer interactions and decisions made.  The Judge did not consider that the operator knew or ought to have known that the individual had been a problem gambler, in part because he kept such problems to himself,  appeared to be able to afford and fund his activities and had misled the licensee about his activities. Ultimately the Judge found that the operator was not in breach of the LCCP and the claim was dismissed. 

Operators must continue to apply an appropriate framework for customer interaction, customer monitoring and of course satisfy their obligations under the ever evolving LCCP, with a particular focus on social responsibility.  Regulatory failings can of course see fines and settlements with the regulator aimed, in part, at ensuring operators divest themselves of any financial gain realised as a result of those failings.

The establishment of a Gambling Ombudsman, whose purpose will be to provide redress for disputes between customers and operators, including those relating to social responsibility concerns, will provide a forum for customer complaints and hopefully some clarity, but in our view it is likely to result in an increase in complaints received by operators as awareness amongst customers increases.

Whilst all cases must be reviewed on the specific details, this case should provide some reassurance against potentially spurious litigious claims.