Writing in NLJ this week, Amanda Leiu, Hamish Corner and Jess Mant of Burges Salmon analyse the Court of Appeal’s decision in RTM v Bonne Terre, involving a recovering gambling addict and targeted marketing by Sky Betting.
The court rejected an earlier finding that consent depends on an individual’s subjective state of mind. Instead, it confirmed that consent must be assessed objectively, based on factors such as information provided, choices presented and actions taken. The judges concluded that organisations are not required to prove what a person actually thought when consenting. However, vulnerability remains important.
The court suggested that where organisations know, or ought to know, that someone’s autonomy is compromised, wider fairness obligations may still be engaged. The ruling offers certainty on consent while reminding businesses that fairness and transparency remain critical safeguards.
