The gambling giant Entain who own Ladbrokes, Coral and bwin has launched a High Court case against Liquidity Trading Limited. The defendants are the holding company behind Outplayed and OddsMonkey who are two of the UK’s largest matched betting platforms. Entain claims its trademarks are being infringed and has accused the matched betting website of promoting irresponsible gambling practices.
Matched betting, who often promote their services as a “risk-free” way to make money with their method taking advantage of bookmakers’ free bet promotions to generate profit regardless of the outcome of a sporting event. Websites like Outplayed teach bettors how to exploit these loopholes and charge a subscription fee in exchange for access to detailed guidance and tools.
Entain argues that this model is not only parasitic but also misleading subscribers. A company spokesperson voiced “as a fully regulated and licensed operator, we dedicate significant energy and resources to player safety. Matched betting is unregulated, and the defendants promote the idea that gambling is a risk-free source of income.”
According to documents obtained by NEXT.io Entain’s case protests the alleged unauthorised use of its brands including Coral, Ladbrokes and Gala in Outplayed’s marketing materials and websites dashboards. The bookmaker claims that displaying its logos alongside matched betting offers leads customers into believing that such activities are endorsed or approved.
Entain’s lawyers also criticised Outplayed “socially irresponsible messaging,” pinpoint examples where matched betting was marketed as a method to guarantee a profit. They argue that this marketing tool brushes aside the company’s responsible gambling (RG) commitments and in turn pushes vulnerable players to future harm.
In our view, this case highlights a deeper tension in the gambling industry between innovation and exploitation of those most vulnerable. Matched betting grew from loopholes in promotional offers run by betting companies and using these incentives to profit opportunities for savvy punters. While many will argue this is technically legal and the nature of the game of beating the bookmaker, the practice challenges the spirit of fair play and arguably distinguishes how betting markets are meant to function when compared to online casinos that accept credit cards.
We feel Entain’s moral high ground isn’t without scrutiny. For many years major bookmakers have long used aggressive advertising and enticing “free bet” offers to attract new and old players. This short term attraction later increases the risks of addiction or financial loss over time.
Industry critics have also pointed out certain issues with matched betting sites saying they target vulnerable groups such as parents on maternity leave and young social media users. This offering has limited refund options and minimal safer gambling messaging. Such marketing methods risk crossing the line from financial education into exploiting the less knowledgeable.
Entain’s lawsuit could mark a large turning point for the UK betting landscape. If successful, it could set new boundaries for how third-party gambling services use bookmaker branding and how “risk-free” gambling strategies are promoted in the future. From an impartial view it highlights an industry that is an adult leisure interest that is built on chance and financial risk. Who can truly claim to make gambling safe, fair and not harmful?