According to court files, the Gambling Commission has defended its conduct of the 888 licence review after Kenny Alexander and Lee Feldman accused it of breaching their privacy.
The regulator has defended its handling of a regulatory review that resulted in the cancellation of a proposed leadership shake-up at 888 Holdings, claiming in a High Court filing that it acted within its statutory duties and did not improperly disclose private information about the two former gaming executives.
The legal dispute revolves around the Commission’s decision to conduct a licence review of 888 in July 2023 after learning that Lee Feldman and Kenny Alexander, both former senior executives at GVC Holdings, now Entain, were in talks to take on key positions at 888.
The attorneys for the regulatory body stated: “It is denied that the Defendant was under any duty or obligation to inform the Claimants about the concerns which it had… or otherwise ought to have done.”
The Gambling Commission noted that it had an obligation to act because Feldman and Alexander held key roles at GVC during the probe.
According to its argument, the Commission was concerned that their prospective return to a significant UK gaming operator could pose a regulatory danger.
It informed 888 that a Section 116 license review would be initiated, prompting the company to promptly terminate links with Feldman and Alexander.
See also:
- Scientific Games Becomes New Mexico Lottery’s SGEP & Systems Partner
- PAGCOR PROMISES SUPPORT FOR SPECIAL CLASS BPOs
- ESA Gaming has launched Plinko Drops, the first of its type
Did the Commission violate privacy rules?
A crucial point of argument is whether the Commission’s disclosures about the review, including a March 2024 news statement stating that it had been dropped, constitute a violation of privacy.
Feldman and Alexander claim that they were never under investigation and that the regulator’s disclosures created the false impression that they were unsuitable to have gambling licenses.
They claim the Commission violated its own publicity regulations, which state that early-stage inquiries should only be made public under extraordinary situations.
However, the Gambling Commission maintains that it made no findings against the two men and that its remarks were carefully phrased to avoid making direct charges.
It further claims that its March 2024 press statement was distributed reactively to four journalists in response to media inquiries.
The regulator claims that its duty as a public authority obligated it to provide transparency in a case involving one of the UK’s largest gambling firms.
The claimants, however, maintain that this distinction is irrelevant because the comment received widespread media attention nonetheless.
They cite the Bloomberg v ZXC decision, in which the Supreme Court determined that persons exposed to regulatory probes generally have the right to privacy unless there is a compelling public interest in disclosure.
Along with their complaint against the Commission, the ex-GVC executives filed claims against their old employer this week for material supplied with UK prosecutors while negotiating a settlement over past Turkish bribery charges.
Join us on all our social channels and groups
Gameongazette is present on:
