RTM v Sky Bet (gambler data, consent, cookies): Status, Rulings and What It Means for Players

The UK Supreme Court granted permission to appeal in part on September 28, 2026, in the only UK case in our record on how a gambling operator may use a customer's data for marketing.

The High Court ruled for the gambler on January 23, 2025, the Court of Appeal reversed on April 21, 2026, and no hearing date is listed.

No payout exists. The case is one person's claim against two companies, and no court has assessed damages.

Three courts, three dates; the Court of Appeal order stands while the Supreme Court appeal is pending.

What this case is about

RTM v Bonne Terre Ltd and Hestview Ltd (Sky Betting and Gaming) is an individual claim now before the UK Supreme Court as UKSC/2026/0100, coming from the Court of Appeal and the High Court. A complaint states one side's allegations; only the court's orders decide anything.

What RTM alleged against Sky Betting and Gaming

RTM, an anonymized recovering problem gambler, sued Bonne Terre Ltd and Hestview Ltd, the Sky Betting and Gaming companies, over cookies, profiling and roughly twice-daily marketing emails between 2017 and early 2019. The claim was filed in 2023, and the trial ran from November 11 to 15, 2024.

As pleaded, the claim relied on the Data Protection Act 1998 and the GDPR and UK GDPR (lawful basis, consent, profiling), on regulations 6 and 22 of the PECR 2003 (cookies, direct marketing) and on misuse of private information. Which of these succeeded beyond consent is not confirmed in the court record.

The three levels carry separate numbers: UKSC/2026/0100 at the Supreme Court, CA-2025-000651 in the Court of Appeal and KB-2023-000775 in the High Court. The High Court decision is [2025] EWHC 111 (KB) and the Court of Appeal decision is [2026] EWCA Civ 488.

The case is one of the casino and sportsbook data breach lawsuits we track, and it is the only UK case in that group.

Other proceedings against the same group are collected under Sky Bet lawsuits (Flutter), the company page that lists Sky Bet.

The consent test the courts are applying

Consent to cookies and direct marketing must be a clear affirmative indication that is freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous. That is the standard the Court of Appeal stated in [2026] EWCA Civ 488 on April 21, 2026.

The Court of Appeal held that the test is objective, and that a customer's vulnerability or problem gambling is not relevant to whether consent was given. Our page on gambling lawsuits in the United Kingdom lists the other UK court cases in the same field.

The High Court had taken the opposite view. Collins Rice J held on January 23, 2025 that RTM's consent was not freely given because his autonomy was impaired, and the Court of Appeal's objective test replaced that reasoning on April 21, 2026.

Who is covered

No one is covered by this case: it is a claim by one person against two companies, not a class action or a settlement. There is no class, no opt-in and nothing to file.

No group action over Sky Bet data is recorded in our case list, so a reader who received similar emails has no claim to join here.

The courts name the claimant only as RTM, and we describe him no further. What happened to any other customer depends on facts that none of these courts has examined, so the case is not a ruling on anyone else's emails or cookies.

Is there a payout?

No payout exists: no court has assessed damages in this case, the High Court's liability judgment was set aside on April 21, 2026, and the case is one man's claim, not a class action or a settlement. There is no fund and no formula.

Why no damages have been assessed

Remedies were deferred after the High Court's liability judgment, and the Court of Appeal then set that judgment aside, so no damages figure exists in any court document.

If the case returns to the High Court and remedies are reached, they would be assessed there. Until then there is nothing to estimate.

The case also has no settlement, no administrator and no claim deadline. The Supreme Court appeal concerns how consent is judged and who hears the remitted case, not an amount of money.

What the ruling means for other gamblers

The Court of Appeal's objective test means a customer's vulnerability does not, by itself, decide whether consent was given, so the 2025 High Court reasoning cannot be relied on as law. The pending Supreme Court issue, whether consent is purely objective, is exactly this point.

Some commentary still treats the 2025 ruling as the position. It was the High Court's view at first instance and has been set aside, so it is not a safe guide to what a court will accept today.

What has succeeded in court for UK claimants is set out in our guide to UK gambling compensation claims. The UK duty-of-care claims against operators, Calvert (2008), Gibson (2025) and Ashton (November 13, 2026), all failed.

What happens next

The next event is a Supreme Court hearing, and no date has been listed on the court's case page as of November 14, 2026. The status is appealed.

The Court of Appeal's order stands while the appeal is pending, and the High Court's 2025 liability judgment remains set aside.

The Supreme Court: permission granted in part on September 28, 2026

The Supreme Court granted permission to appeal on three issues only, in UKSC/2026/0100 on September 28, 2026. Permission was granted in part, so other proposed grounds were not allowed through, and the record does not name them.

• Whether consent is purely objective.
• Procedural fairness in the Court of Appeal.
• Remittal to a different judge.

A grant of permission is not a ruling on the merits. It lets the appeal be heard on those issues and says nothing yet about who will win. When the court lists a hearing, the date will be added to this page's status line, and we re-check the court's page weekly.

The High Court: what remittal leaves open

The Court of Appeal remitted the case to the High Court, and the scope of the issues sent back is not confirmed in the court record.

Remittal to a different judge is one of the three Supreme Court issues, so who hears the remitted case is itself in question. Remedies, if they are reached, would be assessed in the High Court.

Timeline

Four dated steps separate the 2017 to 2019 marketing from the Supreme Court permission.

The UK duty-of-care claims against operators, from Calvert in 2008 to Ashton in 2026, all failed, which frames how far a data claim like this can reach.

What the court has decided so far

Two courts have ruled in opposite directions, and only the Court of Appeal's order stands. As of September 28, 2026 the status is appealed; no hearing date is listed.

High Court, January 23, 2025

On January 23, 2025, Collins Rice J held in [2025] EWHC 111 (KB) that RTM's consent was not freely given because his autonomy was impaired, and gave judgment on liability for him.

The trial had run from November 11 to 15, 2024. The judgment decided liability only: remedies were deferred, and no damages were assessed.

A liability judgment settles who was in the wrong, if it stands. It puts no figure on loss, and no figure followed, because the Court of Appeal set the judgment aside before remedies were reached.

Court of Appeal, April 21, 2026

On April 21, 2026, the Court of Appeal allowed Sky Betting and Gaming's appeal on all five grounds in [2026] EWCA Civ 488, holding that consent is an objective test.

Warby LJ gave the decision, with Dame Victoria Sharp P and Lewison LJ agreeing. The liability judgment was set aside and the case remitted; the Court of Appeal's own summary is on the judiciary.uk site.

The Court of Appeal set out the consent test as a clear affirmative indication that is freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous. It added that a customer's vulnerability or problem gambling is not relevant to whether consent was given, which is the point the Supreme Court has agreed to examine.

Documents and sources

Every date and holding on this page comes from the three courts' documents listed here.

• High Court judgment [2025] EWHC 111 (KB): National Archives, primary, January 23, 2025.
• Court of Appeal judgment [2026] EWCA Civ 488: National Archives, primary, April 21, 2026.
• Court of Appeal summary: judiciary.uk, primary, April 21, 2026.
• Supreme Court case page UKSC/2026/0100: supremecourt.uk, primary; we cite the case by its number only and name no appellant or respondent.

Related cases

Related cases show the other UK routes for claims against gambling operators and the other data-protection cases in our record.

UK claims against operators that failed

Three UK duty-of-care claims against operators have failed, which frames what RTM's case does and does not change.

• Ashton v Betfair: dismissed by the High Court on November 13, 2026.
• Calvert v William Hill: Court of Appeal, December 16, 2008, no general duty.
• Gibson v Betfair: Court of Appeal, December 8, 2025, dismissed.

Other data-protection cases against gambling operators

The same consent and data-access questions appear in four other cases in our record.

• Casino Rama data breach class action: Ontario Superior Court, certification refused on May 7, 2019.
• GDPR access against offshore casino granted: OLG Wien, June 10, 2024, 14 R 48/24t.
• GDPR access request against casino abusive: LG Coburg, May 2, 2024, 51 O 286/23, the opposite result.
• Kalshi data-sharing class actions: privacy suits in S.D. Cal. and S.D.N.Y., pending.

The two European decisions point in opposite directions on data access. The OLG Wien confirmed that a player may demand his data record from an unlicensed online casino under Art. 15 GDPR, while the LG Coburg treated the same kind of request as abusive. Neither concerns marketing consent.

Questions people ask

Is the Sky Bet data case still going?

Yes; the Supreme Court granted permission to appeal in part on September 28, 2026 and no hearing date is listed. The Court of Appeal's order of April 21, 2026 stands in the meantime.

Is the January 2025 High Court ruling still the law?

No; the Court of Appeal set the January 2025 liability judgment aside on April 21, 2026. Some commentary still presents the 2025 ruling as the position, which is out of date.

Did the Court of Appeal say a problem gambler cannot consent?

No; the Court of Appeal held that consent is an objective test and that a customer's vulnerability is not relevant to whether consent was given, and the Supreme Court will review that point.

Can I claim against a bookmaker over marketing emails?

This case gives no claim form or fund. Whether a gambler can recover anything from a bookmaker is answered, with every court result, in can you get gambling losses back.

Is there a class action over Sky Bet data?

No; this is a single-claimant case, and no group action over Sky Bet data is recorded in our case list. The wider picture is in every UK gambling case.

When is the Supreme Court hearing?

None has been listed as of the Supreme Court's page update; we re-check weekly.

Does this case decide whether Sky Bet broke the law?

No; the Court of Appeal set the liability judgment aside, so no court has finally decided that, and the case is pending.

GamblingLawsuits.org is a non-commercial project. It takes no money from operators, affiliates or law firms. We are not a law firm and not a settlement administrator. Last checked: November 14, 2026.