RTM v Bonne Terre: Objectively sound direct marketing

On 21 April 2026, the U.K. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) handed down a welcome judgment in RTM v Bonne Terre Ltd [2026] EWCA Civ 488, and confirmed that the test for consent, in the context of data protection and ePrivacy law, is an objective one. The court confirmed that consent validity is not assessed on the basis of subjective elements, like an individual's state of mind or potential vulnerability at the time of giving consent. Instead, and consistent with prior case law, consent must be assessed on an objective, uniform basis across different fact patterns and contexts. 

Background 

The case concerns RTM, a problem gambler who overcame this problem by 2019, and the two-year period prior to his overcoming this issue by 2019. RTM stated that during this period, Sky Betting and Gaming placed cookies on his devices or browsers, processed his personal data, and sent him targeted direct marketing. RTM sued SBG, contending that SBG had acted unlawfully when doing those things, causing him to gamble more and lose more money than he otherwise would have, and accordingly that he had suffered financial loss and distress. 

Initial High Court judgment

The initial High Court judgment (RTM v Bonne Terre Ltd [2025] EWHC 111 (KB))held that the question was whether RTM had given "legally operative consent;" that he had not done so, and SBG's activities over the relevant period were therefore unlawful. The judge devised a novel, three-strand test based on relevant EU and U.K. case law, which comprised: "(1) good quality subjective consent, depending on the individual's actual state of mind; or (2) absent that, a fully autonomous choice by the individual about the grant of consent; and (3) some minimum evidential standards for proof of consent."