Sky Betting and Gaming data consent case sent back to High Court

(AsiaGameHub) –   Sky Betting and Gaming (SBG) has won the right to appeal a 2025 High Court decision related to marketing materials sent to an individual who identifies as a problem gambler.

The Court of Appeal, led by Lord Justice Warby, found that the January 2025 High Court judgment from Justice Collins Rice relied on an incorrect legal approach regarding the evidence required to confirm a data subject had provided consent.

The High Court case RTM v Bonne Terre Limited & Anor concluded last year, with Justice Rice ruling that the claimant—referred to as RTM—had not given legally valid consent for the collection of their personal data.

RTM was later sent direct marketing messages based on SBG’s cookie placement and data gathering. Between 2007 and 2019, RTM gambled on SBG’s platform and lost £45,000, a figure disclosed publicly last year.

SBG immediately stated its intention to appeal the decision and subsequently filed an appeal on five separate grounds. During the process, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) intervened to provide guidance to the court on the topic of consent for data collection.

“We’re glad the Court of Appeal has sided with us. This is a crucial decision not just for Sky Bet but for the entire industry,” a Flutter UK&I representative told SBC News.

“We take pride in our industry-leading focus on customer safety and remain fully dedicated to protecting players.”

Debating data consent

SBG’s primary argument was against Justice Rice’s claim that “consent is subjective, not objective” and that RTM could not have given consent due to being a problem gambler.

According to Justice Warby’s interpretation of UK GDPR regulations, a data controller like SBG must demonstrate that a data subject (RTM) provided an “indication” of their preferences for data processing related to direct marketing.

This indication is based on objective criteria: the user’s consent must be freely given, specific, informed, and unambiguous.

“The data controller does not have to prove what the individual data subject was actually thinking at the time of the ‘indication’,” the court’s ruling stated.

“For this purpose, it is neither necessary nor relevant to investigate whether the individual data subject was vulnerable or had an impaired ability to make fully autonomous decisions.”

The ruling essentially found that SBG could not have been aware at the time that RTM’s problem gambling might have influenced their decision to give consent.

With all five of SBG’s appeal grounds approved, the case will now be returned to the High Court.

“This is an important and sensible judgment,” said Patrick Rennie, Partner and Head of Data Protection at Wiggin LLP—the law firm representing SBG in the appeal.

“Data controllers need to understand what data protection laws require of them and how to comply. The original judgment left controllers, particularly operators, in an impossible situation similar to strict liability.

“The Court of Appeal’s decision brings greater clarity, allowing controllers to focus on delivering services in a compliant and confident way.”