Former Entain Execs Sue the UKGC Over Violations of Privacy

Article by : Erik Gibbs Nov 5, 2024

• 
• 

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.

This lawsuit follows Alexander and Feldman’s failed bid to acquire leadership positions at 888 Holdings, a prominent online gaming company through their investment firm FS Gaming. Their aspirations were disrupted when the UKGC began investigating 888 Holdings, citing concerns connected to an HMRC probe into GVC’s historical dealings in the Turkish grey market. The investigation, which surfaced allegations of bribery and corruption, led the UKGC to express reservations about 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, it’s important to note that this DPA exclusively pertains to Entain as an entity and does not cover any actions by former GVC executives. This left Alexander and Feldman’s professional and personal conduct under scrutiny.

The legal foundation for Alexander and Feldman’s claim is rooted in the UK’s misuse of private information tort, a provision that allows individuals to seek legal recourse if their private information is disclosed without consent. This tort involves a two-step test in the courts, which first assesses whether there was unwanted access to private information, followed by a balance of the individual’s right to privacy against competing public interests. 

Should Alexander and Feldman’s case satisfy both aspects of this test, they could potentially secure a favorable ruling, setting a significant precedent for privacy rights in regulatory contexts.

While the specifics of the lawsuit against the UKGC remain undisclosed, the case raises questions about how regulatory bodies manage private information, especially when oversight intersects with broader investigations. The UKGC declined to comment on the ongoing legal proceedings, adding further intrigue to a case that could redefine privacy expectations for industry executives facing regulatory scrutiny.