This box is not visible in the printed version.
Request date: 19 August 2025
This version was printed or saved on: 24 November 2025
Online version: https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/about-us/freedomofinformation/betindex
Public Interest Justification: The Football Index collapse in March 2021 resulted in over £124 million in consumer losses, with significant public and parliamentary interest. Disclosure is in the public interest to ensure accountability, inform ongoing gambling regulation reforms (e.g., Gambling White Paper 2023), and prevent future consumer harm from misregulated products.
Exemption Consideration: I recognise potential exemptions under Section 42 (legal professional privilege) and Section 31 (law enforcement). Given the scale of consumer harm and ongoing reform, there is a strong public interest in transparency. If full disclosure is not possible, please provide:
The KC's name and chambers, and the instruction and delivery dates; and A redacted or summarised account of the legal reasoning, in line with the duty to advise and assist under Section 16 FOIA.’
Thank you for your request which has been processed under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).
In your email you have requested:
‘1. The identity (name and chambers) of the King's Counsel (KC) who provided legal advice to the Gambling Commission regarding the regulatory classification of BetIndex Ltd's "Football Index" product. 2. The date(s) on which the Gambling Commission sought and received this KC opinion. 3. The full text of the KC's written opinion, or a redacted version if exemptions apply
Public Interest Justification: The Football Index collapse in March 2021 resulted in over £124 million in consumer losses, with significant public and parliamentary interest. Disclosure is in the public interest to ensure accountability, inform ongoing gambling regulation reforms (e.g., Gambling White Paper 2023), and prevent future consumer harm from misregulated products.
Exemption Consideration: I recognise potential exemptions under Section 42 (legal professional privilege) and Section 31 (law enforcement). Given the scale of consumer harm and ongoing reform, there is a strong public interest in transparency. If full disclosure is not possible, please provide:
The KC's name and chambers, and the instruction and delivery dates; and A redacted or summarised account of the legal reasoning, in line with the duty to advise and assist under Section 16 FOIA.’
The Gambling Commission can confirm as follows:
Question 1:
The Commission can confirm that we do hold information falling within the scope of part one of your request.
However, the Data Protection Act 2018 requires personal data to be processed lawfully, fairly and in a transparent manner in relation to the data subject. It is the view of the Commission that disclosing the name and chambers of the King’s Counsel who provided legal advice to the Commission on this case would constitute the disclosure of personal data and therefore would contravene this data protection principle.
The Commission has also considered the legitimate interest of disclosing this information under Article 6(f) of GDPR, and it is our view that the legitimate interests for disclosing this information do not outweigh the rights of the individual.
This information is therefore exempt under section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Question 2:
Section 21 of the FOIA provides that information is exempt where it is reasonably accessible elsewhere. In order to be of assistance, please see page 93 of the Sheehan Report, which states:
Question 3:
The Commission does hold a legal opinion which was obtained by BetIndex from Leading Counsel and which was provided to the Commission in December 2020. However, this information is exempt under Section 42 – Legal Professional Privilege on the basis that it is subject to legal advice privilege which was shared on a limited and confidential basis with the Commission, and the public interest test lies in favour of maintaining the exemption.
Our consideration for engaging this exemption is detailed below
Legal Professional Privilege – Section 42
Section 42 provides an exemption under the FOIA for Legal Professional Privilege (LPP). Information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege or, in Scotland, to confidentiality of communications could be maintained in legal proceedings is exempt information.
LPP protects the confidentiality of free and frank communications between a legal advisor and a client.
These records, which are not being disclosed, pertain to legal advice provided to Commission staff (clients) or to third parties who have provided the material to the Commission on the basis that the privileged status of the material is maintained.
The communications between the legal advisor and the client was provided for the main purpose of legal advice.
There has been no previous disclosure of the information and therefore the advice remains confidential.
Public interest test
The factors the Commission has considered when applying the public interest test have been detailed below and our view is that the public interest lies in favour of applying the exemption.
In favour of disclosure
In favour of maintaining the exemption
Weighing the balance
The Commission recognises that there is a public interest in the disclosure of information relating to BetIndex, however, there is a greater argument in favour of safeguarding the communications between clients and their legal advisors to ensure access to full and frank legal advice. The advice provided is the opinion of a legally qualified individual and is not a definitive statement in law.
Disclosure of this information would infringe on the rights of Commission staff to gain legal advice on matters which ultimately could impact on consumers.
On balance, we consider that the public interest is better served by withholding the information ensuring that the provision of legal advice is safeguarded.
Finally, you have requested that if full disclosure is not possible, to provide a redacted or summarised account of the legal reasoning. It should be noted that the FOIA gives individuals the right to request only recorded information held by public authorities, such as the Gambling Commission. It does not provide an avenue for individuals to gain views or opinions of public authorities or information not held at the time the request is made. The FOIA also does not require public authorities to create new information in order to answer a request.
If you are unhappy with the service you have received in relation to your Freedom of Information request you are entitled to an internal review of our decision. You should write to FOI Team, Gambling Commission, 4th floor, Victoria Square House, Victoria Square, Birmingham, B2 4BP or by reply to this email.
Please note, internal review requests should be made within 40 working days of the initial response. Requests made outside this timeframe will not be processed.
If you are not content with the outcome of our review, you may then apply directly to the Information Commissioner (ICO) for a decision. Generally, the ICO cannot make a decision unless you have already exhausted the review procedure provided by the Gambling Commission.
It should be noted that if you wish to raise a complaint with the ICO about the Commission’s handling of your request for information, then you are required to do so within six weeks of receiving your final response or last substantive contact with us.
The ICO can be contacted at: The Information Commissioner’s Office (opens in new tab), Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF.
Information Management Team
Gambling Commission
I write to request an internal review of your decision dated 4 September 2025, refusing my Freedom of Information request under the FOIA 2000.
Name and chambers of the King's Counsel who advised on BetIndex Ltd's "Football Index" classification.
Instruction date (10 March 2020) and delivery date (19 March 2020) of that opinion.
The full text of the KC's written opinion, or a redacted version if exemptions apply.
Exemptions cited: Section 40(2) (personal data) and Section 42 (legal professional privilege).
Grounds for Review
The Act requires you to offer redactions or summaries rather than an outright refusal. A redacted opinion omitting only genuinely privileged passages fully complies with this duty.
The collapse of Football Index caused £124 million in consumer losses and triggered substantial parliamentary scrutiny (Gambling White Paper 2023). Openness about the legal advice driving the Commission's classification decision is vital to restore public confidence and to prevent future consumer harm.
In Decision NoticeFS50749318 (2017), the ICO found that where public harm is significant, public authorities should release redacted summaries of legal advice.
The Sheehan Report (p.93) already confirms the instruction and receipt dates. Only the adviser's reasoning remains withheld.
The identity of a KC acting in their professional capacity is not private personal data but a matter of public record and scrutiny.
I am writing to you further to your Freedom of Information request dated 19/08/2025 which we responded to on 04/09/2025, and your subsequent request for an internal review received on 26/09/2025.
We have now concluded our review, and our findings are detailed below.
This internal review was conducted by someone who was not involved in the processing of your original request.
In your initial email you requested the following information:
In our response we advised that disclosing the name and chambers of the King’s Counsel who provided legal advice to the Commission on this case would constitute the disclosure of personal data. Therefore, this information was exempt under section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
We then went on to confirm that the Commission instructed Counsel to give an opinion on the product on 10 March 2020. On 19 March 2020, the Commission received the draft legal advice.
Finally, we confirmed that the Commission does hold a legal opinion which was obtained by BetIndex from Leading Counsel. However, this information was shared on a limited and confidential basis with the Commission and therefore exempt under Section 42 (Legal Professional Privilege).
In your request for an internal review, you have expressed concerns with the application of Section 40 to part one of your request and Section 42 to part three of your request. As such, I have focused my review on these elements.
Internal Review
Personal Information - Section 40
Section 40 Personal information subsection (2) states that any information to which a request for information relates is also exempt information if—
(a) it constitutes personal data which does not fall within subsection (1), and
(b) the first, second or third condition below is satisfied.
In this case the relevant condition is contained in section 40(3A)(a). (3A) The first condition is that the disclosure of the information to a member of the public otherwise than under this Act—
(a) would contravene any of the data protection principles,
This applies where the disclosure of the information to any member of the public would contravene any of the principles relating to the processing of personal data as set out in Article 5 of the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR).
Firstly, we must determine whether the withheld information constitutes personal data. Section 3(2) of the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA) defines personal data as:
‘any information relating to an identified or identifiable living individual’.
The two main elements of personal data are that the information must relate to a living person and that the person must be identifiable. An identifiable living individual is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identifier such as a name, an identification number, location data, an online identifier or to one or more factors specific to the physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural or social identity of the individual. Information will relate to a person if it is about them, linked to them, has biographical significance for them, is used to inform decisions affecting them or has them as its main focus.
The FOI request asks the identity, including the name and chambers of who provided legal advice to the Gambling Commission regarding the regulatory classification of BetIndex Ltd's "Football Index" product. The name of this individual obviously falls within the scope of personal data. However, the Commission further argues that given the relatively specialist nature of the advice provided, it would not be difficult to identify this individual by providing the name of the chambers alone.
This information therefore falls within the definition of ‘personal data’ in section 3(2) of the DPA.
Secondly, we must establish whether disclosure of that data would breach any of the DP principles. There are seven data protection principles. In this case, it is principle (a) which is relevant to this request.
Principle (a) states: ‘Personal data shall be processed lawfully, fairly and in a transparent manner in relation to the data subject…’
Article 5(1)(a) of the UK GDPR states that “Personal data shall be processed lawfully, fairly and in a transparent manner in relation to the data subject”. This means that the information can only be disclosed if to do so would be lawful, fair and transparent.
In order to be lawful, one of the lawful bases listed in Article 6(1) of the UK GDPR must apply to the processing. It must also be generally lawful.
Article 6(1) of the UK GDPR specifies the requirements for lawful processing by providing that “processing shall be lawful only if and to the extent that at least one of the” lawful bases for processing listed in the Article applies.
The Commission considers that the lawful basis most applicable is basis 6(1)(f) which states: “processing is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by the controller or by a third party except where such interests are overridden by the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject which require protection of personal data, in particular where the data subject is a child”.
In considering the application of Article 6(1)(f) of the UK GDPR in the context of this request for information under FOIA, it is necessary to consider the following three-part test:
i. Legitimate interest test: Whether a legitimate interest is being pursued in the request for information;
ii. Necessity test: Whether disclosure of the information is necessary to meet the legitimate interest in question;
iii. Balancing test: Whether the above interests override the legitimate interest(s) or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject.
Legitimate interest
In considering any legitimate interest(s) in the disclosure of the requested information under FOIA, the Commission recognises that a wide range of interests may be legitimate interests. They can be the requester’s own interests or the interests of third parties, and commercial interests as well as wider societal benefits.
Football Index was granted a gambling license by the GC and launched in October 2015. It was marketed as a platform for individuals to gamble on football players. The Gambling Commission suspended Football Index’s gambling license in March 2021, and it entered administration shortly after, leaving approximately £90 million worth of customer stakes trapped in the platform.
The Commission accepts that, in the case of Bet Index, the requestor, as well as the wider public, has a legitimate interest in understanding the Gambling Commission’s regulatory oversight of this company. Further to this, there may be some interest in understanding the speciality of the individual who provided the advice.
Necessity, is disclosure necessary?
In the context of the FOIA, ‘necessary’ means more than desirable but less than indispensable or absolute necessity.
Accordingly, the test is one of reasonable necessity and involves consideration of alternative measures which may make disclosure of the requested information unnecessary. Disclosure under the FOIA must therefore be the least intrusive means of achieving the legitimate aim in question.
The Commission, although it accepts the legitimacy of the requestor’s interests, does not consider that disclosure is necessary, given the volume of information made available regarding the collapse of Bet Index. The Commission argues that the third party/parties would not expect their professional representations to be disclosed to the world at large, as ultimately, it was only advice, and it was ultimately the Commission’s decision to accept that advice and treat Bet Index accordingly.
Balancing
Finally, it is necessary to balance the legitimate interests in disclosure against the data subject’s interests or fundamental rights and freedoms. In doing so, it is necessary to consider the impact of disclosure.
In this case, the third party/parties would have a reasonable expectation that their information will not be disclosed. Disclosure could expose them to unwanted and potentially distressing contact or abuse.
Ultimately, the disclosure of this personal data would not contribute to any constructive debate about the collapse of Football Index and for that reason, when weighed up against the consequences that disclosure would illicit, the legitimate interest in disclosure does not outweigh the fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject.
As such, I uphold the decision to withhold the information under section 40(2), by way of section 40(3A)(a).
Legal Professional Privilege – Section 42
Section 42(1) of the FOIA provides that information is exempt from disclosure if the information is protected by legal professional privilege. There are two types of legal professional privilege: litigation privilege and advice privilege. The category of privilege the Commission is relying on to withhold the information in the scope of the request is advice privilege. Advice privilege applies where no litigation is in progress or contemplated. In these cases, communications must be confidential, made between a client and legal adviser acting in a professional capacity, and for the sole or dominant purpose of obtaining legal advice.
The legal professional privilege exemption is class based. Therefore, for the exemption to apply it is not necessary to demonstrate that any prejudice may occur to the professional legal adviser/client relationship if information is disclosed. Rather it is assumed that the disclosure of (even quite trivial) information might undermine the relationship of the lawyer and client.
The Commission accepts that the requested information may enhance the transparency and accountability of public authorities. It ensures that these entities are acting in the public's best interest and allows for greater scrutiny of their actions and decisions. The circumstances of BetIndex were highly unusual, and there is a public interest in understanding the advice the Commission received. However, the events of this case led to Michael Sheehan KC being appointed to undertake an independent review of the regulation of BetIndex and to provide a report to the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. The purpose of the review was to examine the regulatory circumstances around the granting of a licence to BetIndex, its subsequent suspension and the company’s ultimate financial failure. It considered the actions taken by the Commission and other regulatory bodies regarding this complex betting product.
However, there is a public interest in upholding legal professional privilege generally; safeguarding confidential communications between client and lawyer to ensure access to full and frank legal advice. A weakening of the confidence that parties have that legal advice will remain confidential undermines the ability of parties to seek advice and conduct litigation appropriately. This erodes the rule of law and the individual rights it guarantees.
As such, I uphold the decision to withhold the information under section 42 of the FOIA.
If you are not content with the outcome of your review, you may apply directly to the Information Commissioner (ICO) for a decision. Generally, the ICO cannot make a decision unless you have exhausted the complaints procedure provided by the Gambling Commission.