Betfair faces High Court claim over gambler’s death and safer gambling responsibilities

A High Court trial is examining whether Betfair failed to adequately protect a customer. Luke Ashton’s gambling disorder was found to have contributed to his death.

The claim has been brought by Annie Ashton. Her husband died in April 2021 aged 40. In the inquest in 2023, the coroner concluded that a gambling disorder was one of the factors that contributed to his death.

What the inquest revealed

Mr Ashton had been betting over 100 times a day. In the month before his death, he placed over 1,200 bets. One day, he deposited £2,500. His activity in the 10 weeks before his death had become much more intense.

“The operator did not intervene or interact with Mr Ashton in any meaningful way. Betfair could have done more in the relevant period and should have done more in what I find was a crucial period between January and April 2021. Opportunities were missed that could possible have changed the outcome for Luke.” –  Coroner Ivan Cartwright, 2023.

The court case

Mrs Ashton is taking legal action against TSE Malta. TSE Malta is the company that operates Betfair in the UK. She argues that the operator failed to put sufficient measures in place to prevent harm despite her husband's prolonged gambling activity.

Betfair denies the allegations and is contesting the claim. The company maintains that it did not owe a legal duty of care to Mr Ashton. It said its safer gambling procedures were appropriate and correctly applied throughout the period in question.

Email sent after death highlighted in court

During the proceedings, the court heard evidence relating to communications sent by Betfair after Mr Ashton had died.

In a witness statement originally prepared for the inquest, Mrs Ashton said she reviewed her husband's bank accounts, gambling accounts and emails following his death.

She discovered a Betfair email encouraging him to access his account to claim rewards. Mrs Ashton told the court the message made her angry and reinforced her concerns about how gambling operators communicate with customers experiencing gambling-related harm.

She suggested such marketing and retention messages could make it harder for people struggling with gambling problems to distance themselves from betting activity.

The email has become one of the more notable elements of the case. It points to wider concerns around automated marketing systems and customer engagement practices in the gambling sector.

Questions raised over extent of gambling activity

The trial has also examined the scale of Mr Ashton's gambling and whether Betfair was his primary operator.

Mrs Ashton told the court that the majority of her husband's gambling activity during the three years before his death was conducted through Betfair. She also stated that when she checked his mobile phone after his death, Betfair's app was the only gambling-related application installed.

However, lawyers representing Betfair argued that gambling was not the only pressure Mr Ashton faced in the period leading up to his death.

The court heard that he had taken on additional work as a delivery driver during the Covid-19 pandemic after reduced earnings from his main employment. Betfair's legal team also pointed to concerns he had reportedly expressed about job security and financial uncertainty.

Mrs Ashton disputed some of those suggestions. She told the court that her husband had not discussed work-related worries with her. She had not observed significant concerns about his appearance or weight either.

Case could have wider industry implications

The case is being closely watched across the gambling industry. Many think it could help clarify the legal responsibilities operators owe to customers who experience gambling-related harm.

UK gambling companies are required to implement safer gambling measures under regulatory rules. The courts, though, have rarely been asked to determine whether operators owe a broader duty of care to individual customers.

A ruling in favour of either party could therefore have implications for future litigation involving gambling-related harm and the way operators approach customer protection policies.

The trial is expected to continue until 19 June.