A gambler is suing a bookmaker for his losses due to ludomania:

From CNN:
(http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/02/14/gambler.sue/)

Mr Calvert is suing bookies William Hill for failing in their duty of care to him
He has gambled more than $14 million on football, golf and horse racing
Mr Calvert lost $700,000 betting that the US would win the Ryder Cup in 2006
William Hill contests the allegations, saying customers choose to place bets


Sounds ridiculous; however:

Mr Calvert telephoned William Hill in June 2006 to ask them to close his account after he realized he had a gambling problem.

He says he was offered a 'self-exclusion' policy where he would be prevented from placing any bets for a six month period.

However, two months later he was able to open another account with the bookmakers, one of the largest in England. He went on to place several bets, including the one for the Ryder Cup.

Should the online gambling site pay reparations? I am not sure myself - he gambled his own money away; however the gambling site DID offer him a self-exclusion policy and failed to live up to that, which means they made a deal and didn't honour it.

Would he be suing if he came out on top, and made money on his best? His case doesn't sound too sound to me, he knew the odds afterall - I reckon a junkie would have a better time suing his supplier.

It all depends on the condition and set-up of this 'self-exclusion policy'. If it comes down to 'you don't have to bet if you don't want to' or 'We'll close this account for 6 months and not let you use this account', then no. If it were 'We'll forbid all activity involving this client for 6 months' and he didn't go through extreme lengths to open the second account fraudulently, then yes.

Another case of an addict desperate to place the blame for his own behaviour anywhere but where it belongs. What an idiot. I hope this case gets thrown out of court, followed by this guy, head first.

It depends, LKD. Did you notice Monty's second quote? Last week, I wouldn't have paid any attention to it, myself - but I just began work in a support center for online gambling, and dealing with exactly that kind of complaints is a matter of standard company policy. We have to take measure whenever someone identifies themselves or a close associate as a compulsive gambler (naturally, the latter cases are verified first). I think it is considered part of the fair gaming policy.

Anyhow, in his case William Hill was informed the man has a psychological problem, and they agreed to take such measures. Not only is it a matter of maintaining fair policies, but also of providing a promised service. They did neither, and depending on the details (exactly what their plan included) I could support the man's case.

Basically what NOG says seems to be it. Legally (I'm talking in terms of general law science, not a specific system), if they took the obligation not to accept his bets, then they're responsible for his loss and he's still entitled to all the gain. If they didn't take the obligation not to accept his bets but merely allowed him to stop betting for a period of time, but he placed a bet anyway, then they are not responsible.

However, problems arise in factual situations, which are more complicated than the ideal model. Perhaps he told them about his medical problems and that he didn't want them to accept his bets. And perhaps they offered him some measures they said would be fine in reponse to that, while they were deficient. And perhaps they accepted his bets knowing about his problems and knowing his previous wish not to have bets accepted. In that case, there are grounds of liability.