The High Court has ruled that an Alderney linked gambling company unlawfully targeted a problem gambler, bombarding him with marketing emails.
Judge Rowena Collins Rice found that Sky Betting & Gaming sent the man personalised marketing without proper consent after processing vast volumes of data about him and his gambling habits.
She described the profiling practices in this case as “parasitic”.
Justice Rice said that the man’s ability to give consent was impaired as he “was not making decisions … on a fully autonomous basis at all”.
The case against Bonne Terre Ltd, trading as Sky Betting & Gaming, came after the man requested records of the data the company held on him.
SB&G is regulated by both the Alderney Gambling Control Commission and United Kingdom Gambling Commission.
Bonne Terre Ltd are based in St Anne’s House, Victoria Street.
The Claimant said he knew he was heading towards a precipice during the time period in question, between 2017 and 2018.
He explained it was “a crazy time – I could not concentrate – it was a haze – all I wanted to do was gamble”.
He knew he had a problem; he had run out of money and was servicing loans. Any winnings were immediately re-deposited. He was in the grip of an “all consuming” compulsion, unable to stop or control it, unable to think straight at all.
He was, he said, heading for “financial armageddon” and personal breakdown, starting to contemplate suicide as the only means of escaping the mess.
The claimant accepted that, as a customer, SB&G was entitled to process his personal data in order to take and process his betting and to comply with its regulatory responsibilities.
But, he argued, SB&G was not entitled to harvest his transactional data , specifically by the use of cookies, to undertake detailed profiling analytics and algorithmic predictions in order to target and personalise its marketing to him, and to deliver that marketing in an intense manner including by sending him emails at an average rate of twice a day.
SB&G’s broad position was that the Claimant did in fact consent to cookie use and to direct marketing.
Justice Rice noted that the ruling was confined to the particular circumstances of the case and the industry’s policies and practices have evolved since the period in question.
“The Claimant was gambling in what might reasonably be called a fast-moving marketing-saturated environment, one in which rich information provided by his own online behaviour was being played back to him in real time with tailored enticements and inducements to play more and play bigger.
“The records show that in August 2018 alone, there were 114 email campaigns for which the Claimant was ‘selected’. These were frequent, high-impact online experiences in their own right, including offers some of which had to be accepted quickly.
“He was playing on several of SB&G’s products, and for long periods.
“He was highly available to, and responsive to, marketing, including while playing. The modelling had identified him as a ‘high value’ customer, and so they marketed to him as such.
“It never identified him as at high enough risk for marketing suppression. The financial triggers for suppression were set at levels beyond the realistically possible reach of a man of the Claimant’s modest means, even when he was spending all the money he could get his hands on and more.”
A further hearing is expected to decide how much compensation he is entitled to.
SB&G said in a statement it is considering an appeal.
“We fundamentally disagree with this judgment,” SB&G said. “We have made significant changes to our controls and processes over the past six years as part of our ongoing investment behind safer gambling and will continue to do so.”