Flutter’s Betfair unit targeted a problem gambler with free bets and promotions that worsened his addiction before he took his own life, lawyers for his family argued at a landmark trial in the UK.
Relatives of Luke Ashton are suing Betfair, part of Dublin-domiciled Flutter, at the High Court in London, claiming that the company actively encouraged him to gamble even as his total losses spiralled to more than £22,000.
Lawyers said the case could reshape the online gambling industry. English courts have long upheld personal autonomy, establishing bookmakers have no general legal duty to protect adults from their own choices.
However, the Ashton family argue that operators can be liable when they proactively encourage vulnerable users. They are seeking £846,478 from Betfair, which is owned by New York-listed Flutter.
Flutter, led by chief executive Peter Jackson, counts the likes of Paddy Power and FanDuel as well as Betfair among its host of brands across the world.
Jeremy Hyam , for the family, told a packed courtroom at the start of a trial on Thursday that Betfair “caused or materially contributed” to a worsening of Ashton’s condition before his death in April 2021.
He said Betfair “created or perpetuated the risk of harm” through the “provision of inducements and free bets” to Ashton.
Hyam added that Ashton showed “multiple indicators of harm” and his behaviour “ought to have triggered a human interaction”.
Betfair is defending the claim. Jonathan Hough , for the company, said in a written submission that accepting the claimants’ arguments would undermine the principle of personal autonomy.
Even if Betfair had suspended Ashton’s account, the claimants cannot show that “he would not simply have gambled to a similar level elsewhere”, Hough said, adding that he had registered with several other bookmakers.
Joshua Swift, a partner at law firm Withers, who is not involved in the case, described the case as “a potential turning point” because it will consider whether English courts are prepared “to revisit the long-standing position that operators do not owe a general duty of care”.
Swift added that legal claims seeking to “extend the boundaries of settled principles of negligence in the context of ‘problem gambling’” were on the rise.
Ashton, who lived in Leicester with his wife, son and stepdaughter, was 40 years old when he took his own life.
Lawyers for the family told the court that his problems became apparent in 2019 when he confessed to having racked up £18,000 in debts and had been researching suicide.
While he and his wife managed to pay off the initial debts, his condition deteriorated in early 2021 when he engaged in “frenetic” gambling on Betfair, repeatedly placing high volumes of bets.
Ashton’s “net outlay” between 2012 and 2021 totalled £22,243, according to Hough’s written submission.
However, Hough added that Betfair’s psychiatrist expert disputed the claim that his suicide was “wholly attributable” to gambling. The defence cited other factors including Covid-19 lockdowns and potential substance misuse.
Hough also said Ashton showed “signs of control”, such as largely avoiding late-night betting.
He added that Betfair had “sophisticated” protections in place, including “escalation processes” that were “ahead of industry norms”.
Flutter UKI, the company’s UK and Ireland division, said in a statement: “We reiterate our sincere condolences to Mrs Ashton and her family over this tragic case.”
A long tradition of legalised gambling in the UK has been supercharged by the internet. A 2025 survey by the UK Gambling Commission, the industry regulator, found that nearly half of adults had participated in some form of gambling – including the National Lottery – in the previous four weeks.
Activists and MPs have long lobbied for higher levies on the sector to simultaneously fund welfare spending and tackle harmful gambling.
In her budget last November, UK chancellor Rachel Reeves hit online gambling operators with steep tax rises but spared high-street betting shops, arguing that the online sector was “associated with the highest levels of harm”.
The trial, before Mr Justice Swift, is due to be heard over 12 days. – Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2026