The BGC thought that there was a “narrow duty of care already recognised at common law because it is owed to customers as a class and enforceable by any customer rather than limited to individual customers towards whom the operator has assumed a particular responsibility https://www.sa-hr.org/profile/meierpeterest/profile.”
Simon Thomas of the Hippodrome Casino also thought there already was such a duty: “We have a duty of care now and we get sued by customers. If we get it totally wrong, people can fairly have a go at us, which obviously helps us to be very responsible. … we as the gambling industry have had some fairly public cases where people have been sued, because they did not follow reasonable protocols and they allowed problem gamblers to gamble with money that was not theirs.”
We think the current position in English law is not so clear. The leading case is Calvert v. William Hill Credit Ltd.400 The claimant, a greyhound trainer, was successful at betting on greyhounds—too successful, and the bookmakers limited his betting.
He turned to other forms of betting, became (in the words of the judge) a pathological gambler, and ruined himself. He twice attempted to self-exclude from William Hill, but although he was assured by their employee that he was self-excluded, the employee failed to implement this, and Mr Calvert continued to bet with them. When he ran out of money he sued William Hill on the basis of a breach of a duty of care owed to him.