Entain’s legal campaign against two major UK matched betting platforms has suffered a significant setback after the High Court struck out its copyright claims.
Justice Cawson ruled last week that Entain cannot proceed with its copyright claims against the businesses behind Outplayed.com and Oddsmonkey without urgently amending its pleadings.
The ruling requires Entain to clearly reflect the origins of its brands in those pleadings if it wishes to keep the copyright element of the case alive.
The lawsuit was originally filed last August, when Entain sued the matched betting businesses for trademark and copyright infringement across several years of alleged activity.
Entain had previously described the matched betting business model as “parasitic,” targeting companies that teach bettors how to profit from operator bonuses.
Despite the copyright ruling, Entain’s core trademark claims remain intact and will continue to be heard, meaning the legal battle is far from over.
The defendants successfully argued that the copyright claims should be removed due to failures in identifying authors, publication dates, and what was considered original in each protected work.
The defendants also highlighted that the materials in question were largely designed by outside agencies, further weakening the grounds on which Entain’s copyright claims rested.
Entain’s own attempt to remove aspects of the matched betting groups’ defence was largely unsuccessful, adding to a mixed outcome for the gambling operator.
An Entain spokesperson said: “Entain does not comment on active litigation. However, as we have previously said, the matched betting business model is a parasitic one, and we take the protection of our brands and reputation extremely seriously. We have strong grounds for our claim and remain confident in it.”
Entain now has a narrow window to replead its copyright claims if it wants to keep that element of the case in play alongside the surviving trademark action.
The case continues to draw attention across the iGaming industry, given the broader questions it raises about how operators can protect their brands from matched betting operations.
