The UK Supreme Court granted RTM permission to appeal in part on 28 September 2026. The dispute involves Hestview Limited and Bonne Terre Limited, which the court identifies as operators of Sky Betting and Gaming.

The case could change how consent is assessed when online gambling businesses use cookies, personal data and targeted marketing. It remains at the appeal stage, with no final ruling.

The central question is whether a customer’s consent depends only on what they did, or also on the circumstances surrounding that choice.

What the Supreme Court will decide

The court will examine whether consent under data-protection and e-privacy law is purely objective. It will also consider whether a person’s state of mind can form part of the legal assessment.

The appeal includes procedural questions. These concern how the Court of Appeal handled the issues and when a case can be sent to a different trial judge.

RTM is an anonymised claimant. The Supreme Court’s case summary says he used Sky Betting and Gaming services, lost large sums of money, and alleges that cookies, personal-data processing and targeted direct marketing encouraged him to gamble more than he otherwise would have done.

Those allegations remain disputed. No court has finally determined them.

How the earlier rulings changed the dispute

On 23 January 2025, the High Court ruled in RTM’s favour on liability. The trial judge found that RTM had not given legally operative consent.

The judge linked that conclusion to the quality of RTM’s choice and his vulnerability as a problem gambler. The question of any remedy was left for a later stage.

On 21 April 2026, the Court of Appeal overturned that liability ruling. It held that the consent test was objective.

Under that approach, the court had to examine the claimant’s identifiable action or statement. It also had to consider whether the action was freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous.

The Court of Appeal said it did not have to determine what was actually in RTM’s mind. It also said it did not have to decide whether his vulnerability impaired his ability to make an autonomous decision.

The Court of Appeal upheld four other grounds raised by Sky Betting and Gaming. It set aside the High Court judgment and ordered that the case be remitted to the High Court, subject to further submissions on the issues to be reconsidered.

Why the appeal matters to Britain’s gambling market

The dispute sits where privacy law meets safer gambling. A Supreme Court ruling could affect how operators serving customers in Great Britain document cookie choices, profiling decisions and marketing permissions.

The practical question is especially important where customer behaviour may reveal vulnerability. A clear click or acceptance could still face legal scrutiny if the court finds that context and state of mind matter to consent.

Information Commissioner’s Office guidance says non-essential cookies normally require consent. That consent must involve a clear positive action and be freely given, specific and informed.

The regulator also says behavioural tracking requires particular care when it involves more intrusive information. Its guidance on electronic marketing says organisations normally need consent before sending unsolicited electronic marketing to individuals.

Organisations must also be able to show what a person agreed to and how that agreement was obtained. The case could therefore affect both the wording of consent notices and the records operators keep behind them.

  • No immediate rule change: the Supreme Court has granted permission to appeal, not issued a final judgment.
  • No confirmed compensation: RTM’s alleged losses and any remedy remain unresolved.
  • A live compliance question: operators will be watching whether vulnerability can affect the legal assessment of consent, even when a customer took an apparently clear action.

What happens next

The Supreme Court’s permission decision was published in case UKSC/2026/0100. The court lists permission as granted in part on 28 September 2026. There is no final ruling or effective date for a new legal standard.

The case page was updated on 2 October 2026. Until the Supreme Court rules, the Court of Appeal’s decision remains the latest judgment on the disputed consent issue in this litigation.

That ruling treated consent as an objective question. The appeal now asks whether that approach went too far under the relevant data-protection and e-privacy rules.