Former Entain Execs Sue the UKGC Over Violations of Privacy

Former GVC Holdings executives, Kenny Alexander and Lee Feldman, have launched a lawsuit against the UK Gambling Commission (UKGC), accusing the regulatory body of mishandling their private information. The claim comes in the wake of a controversial investigation involving Entain, GVC's successor company, with which Alexander and Feldman were previously associated as CEO and chairman, respectively. They allege that the UKGC improperly disclosed or accessed confidential information, fueling concerns about breaches of privacy rights under UK law.

Background and context:

• The lawsuit follows Alexander and Feldman's failed bid to acquire leadership positions at 888 Holdings through their investment firm FS Gaming.

• UKGC investigated 888 Holdings due to concerns linked to an HMRC probe into GVC’s historical dealings in the Turkish grey market.

• Allegations of bribery and corruption surfaced during the investigation, prompting the UKGC to question the executives’ potential influence within 888.

Entain later secured a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) with the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in December 2023, pledging to pay £615 million (US$798 million) to resolve these issues. However, this DPA exclusively pertains to Entain and does not cover any actions by former GVC executives, leaving Alexander and Feldman’s professional and personal conduct under scrutiny.

Legal framework:

• The claim is based on the UK’s misuse of private information tort, allowing recourse if private information is disclosed without consent.

• Courts apply a two-step test: first, whether there was unwanted access to private information; second, balancing the individual’s privacy rights against public interests.

• A successful case could set a precedent for privacy rights in regulatory contexts.

While specifics of the lawsuit remain undisclosed, it raises questions about how regulatory bodies manage private information, particularly when oversight intersects with broader investigations. The UKGC declined to comment on the ongoing legal proceedings, leaving the case poised to potentially redefine privacy expectations for industry executives facing regulatory scrutiny.