The case was brought by a recovering problem gambler, known in court papers as RTM, who argued that his addiction meant he was unable to give genuine consent to receive targeted marketing emails from SBG. The High Court initially agreed, ruling that consent under UK data protection law should be judged subjectively, based on what was actually going on in the customer's mind when they ticked the box.

That decision sent a jolt through the gambling industry. If operators had to work out the mental state of every individual customer before sending marketing, the practical and legal headaches would be enormous.

What the Court of Appeal decided

On appeal, the judges took a different view. They ruled that consent should be assessed objectively, not by trying to get inside each customer's head. In plain terms: if a sign-up process is clear, properly designed, and the customer ticks the consent box, that consent is valid - even if the individual later turns out to have had personal difficulties that affected their judgement.

Lord Justice Warby, giving the lead judgment, pointed out that lawmakers are unlikely to have intended a consent system that businesses could never realistically comply with. He also noted that adults with legal capacity are generally allowed to make unwise decisions and be bound by them - a principle that stretches well beyond gambling.

The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), which intervened in the case, had argued that an operator's actual or constructive knowledge of a customer's state of mind should still count. The court rejected that too, though it accepted such knowledge could matter for other data protection duties, such as fairness.

Why context still matters

The judgment is not a free pass. The court was clear that the context in which consent is sought feeds into the objective test. That includes the regulatory environment the business operates in, the kind of customers it deals with, and the particular risks of its sector.

For gambling operators - bingo sites included - that context is loaded. The UK Gambling Commission already expects licensees to consider vulnerability, and the ICO reprimanded Bonne Terre Limited (the SBG operating entity) in September 2024 over unlawful cookie placement. Operators dealing with potentially vulnerable customers may need simpler language, clearer opt-ins, and more carefully drafted privacy notices than, say, a supermarket loyalty scheme.

The court also dismissed the argument that a "clear imbalance of power" between a gambling firm and its customers could invalidate consent on a case-by-case basis. That imbalance, the judges said, is about the general character of the relationship, not the particular circumstances of one person.

What it means for UK bingo players

For players at UK bingo sites - the practical impact is limited in the short term. Marketing preferences still work the way they always have: if you tick the box, you are opted in; untick it, or use the unsubscribe link, and you are opted out. GAMSTOP self-exclusion continues to block marketing across all UK-licensed sites regardless.

What has changed is the legal ground underneath operators. Bingo brands and their parent groups can now rely on well-designed consent mechanisms without fearing that a court will later unpick them based on an individual customer's personal circumstances. That said, the judgment reinforces that consent journeys must be properly engineered, regularly reviewed, and documented - particularly for operators handling customers who may be at risk of harm.

The case is not necessarily over. It may yet be appealed further, and certain factual issues have been sent back to the High Court to be resolved. Bizzy will be watching how the ICO and UKGC respond, especially given the regulators' growing focus on how gambling firms market to existing customers.

Anyone worried about their gambling can find free, confidential support at GambleAware (gambleaware.org) or through GAMSTOP self-exclusion.