Quick wins for a faster PC:
Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →The High Court’s January 2025 ruling against Sky Betting & Gaming is no longer the operative liability decision: on 21 April 2026, the Court of Appeal allowed the company’s appeal, set aside the High Court’s liability outcome and ordered the case sent back to the High Court. The appeal turned on how consent was assessed; the UK Supreme Court case listing records an application for permission to appeal, not a grant of permission or a Supreme Court hearing.
How the case has changed since the High Court ruling
| Stage | Decision or status |
|---|---|
| High Court, 23 January 2025 | Mrs Justice Collins Rice found for RTM on liability over the use of cookies for personalised direct marketing and the direct marketing itself, on the facts of the case. The judgment is RTM v Bonne Terre Ltd & Anor [2025] EWHC 111 (KB). |
| Court of Appeal, 21 April 2026 | The court allowed Sky Betting & Gaming’s appeal, set aside the decision and order on liability, and directed that the case be remitted to the High Court. The judgment is [2026] EWCA Civ 488. |
| Supreme Court listing | The UK Supreme Court case page for Hestview Limited and another (Respondents) v RTM (Appellant), UKSC/2026/0100, records that an application for permission to appeal was lodged. That listing does not establish that permission was granted or that the Supreme Court heard the case. |
What the High Court said about the marketing
RTM is an anonymised claimant who had experienced problem gambling. The dispute concerned cookies, the processing of his personal data, profiling and targeted direct marketing connected with online betting and gaming. The Court of Appeal describes the relevant gambling and marketing period as the two years before RTM had overcome his problem by early 2019.
The High Court held that, on the particular facts before it, SBG’s use of cookies for personalised direct marketing and its direct marketing to RTM were not lawful processing. It described the profiling as “parasitic on the obtaining of the data and the ultimate delivery of the marketing”: in the circumstances considered, profiling had no separate purpose from obtaining data and delivering the marketing.
Collins Rice also observed that “it is not necessary for online gambling providers to market to their customers in order to allow them to gamble. It is something they choose to do for their own commercial reasons”. That was part of the High Court’s reasoning about the case before it, not the Court of Appeal’s later holding.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
#1 Best Overall
Why the Court of Appeal changed the result
The Court of Appeal held that the High Court’s analysis of consent was wrong. It treated consent as an objective legal assessment. The appeal therefore set aside the High Court’s liability outcome; it did not leave the January 2025 finding in place as the current result.
The Supreme Court permission application raises, among other issues, whether consent is purely objective or includes subjective elements. The application’s presence on the case listing is not itself a Supreme Court ruling on that question.
Rank #2
What this ruling does—and does not—establish
The High Court’s description of profiling as “parasitic” belongs to its reasoning on RTM’s individual circumstances. Because the Court of Appeal set aside the liability decision, it should not be reported as the final appellate determination that Sky Betting’s conduct was unlawful.
Quick Recap
Best Value
Rank #3
- The judgments concern historical conduct and the evidence and facts of this claimant’s case.
- The case does not establish that all targeted marketing by gambling companies is unlawful.
- The High Court’s statement that it was unnecessary to market to customers in order to let them gamble was not a general ban on gambling marketing.
- The High Court said there was “an obviously enhanced risk of defective consent in such a cohort”. That observation does not mean that every person with a gambling problem is incapable of giving consent.
Sources and case records
- RTM v Bonne Terre Ltd & Anor [2025] EWHC 111 (KB), approved High Court judgment, 23 January 2025.
- RTM v Bonne Terre Ltd & Anor [2026] EWCA Civ 488, Court of Appeal judgment, 21 April 2026.
- UK Supreme Court case listing, UKSC/2026/0100, Hestview Limited and another (Respondents) v RTM (Appellant).
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
