Several major gambling operators, including SkyCity Entertainment Group and Bet365, are facing legal proceedings in New Zealand. Plaintiffs challenge the legality of offshore online gambling services offered to local players. The cases are currently before the High Court in Auckland. As a result, the proceedings could become a key test of how New Zealand law applies to international operators serving domestic customers.
Court documents indicate that multiple claims share similar legal issues and may involve overlapping plaintiffs. This suggests a coordinated legal strategy targeting offshore gambling structures.
Multiple Cases Filed Against Offshore Operators
Three separate proceedings have been filed involving companies linked to Bet365, Super Group, and SkyCity. A court minute dated April 17 confirmed that at least one plaintiff is involved across more than one case. Furthermore, the legal questions raised are closely related.
Justice Ian Gault acknowledged the similarities but said it was too early to place the cases under joint case management. He also granted interim name suppression to protect the identities of the plaintiffs while the proceedings progress.
The claims reportedly rely on several legal frameworks, including the Gambling Act, the Financial Markets Conduct Act, the Contract and Commercial Law Act, and the Fair Trading Act. Together, they aim to examine whether offshore online gambling services accepting bets from New Zealand residents breached local law.
Bet365 Challenges Jurisdiction of New Zealand Courts
Bet365 is named in one of the cases alongside CEO Denise Coates, as well as Hillside Gaming ENC and Hillside Sports. The operator has objected to the High Court’s jurisdiction. Specifically, Bet365 argues that New Zealand courts may not have authority over the company’s offshore operations.
Justice Gault has acknowledged Bet365’s jurisdiction challenge. Consequently, this could become a central issue in determining whether offshore operators can be held accountable under New Zealand law.
The dispute follows amendments introduced in June 2025, which explicitly prohibited offshore companies from accepting bets from New Zealand players. The updated rules significantly increased legal risk for operators continuing to service the market from overseas.
SkyCity Faces Proposed Class Action Covering Six-Year Period
SkyCity disclosed in a March filing to the NZX that legal proceedings had been filed against SkyCity Entertainment Group, SkyCity Auckland Holdings, and Silvereye Entertainment, a Malta-based company.
The case focuses on Silvereye’s operation of an online casino platform linked to a SkyCity subsidiary. SkyCity’s half-year reporting indicates that its online casino revenue is derived from New Zealand customers. However, the platform is operated under a Malta licence.
The online platform was built by Gaming Innovation Group (GiG), and Silvereye is described as a GiG subsidiary. SkyCity has argued that GiG is directly responsible for customer contracts. In addition, the company has denied liability while confirming it will defend the case.
The claim seeks approval for a funded class action covering losses by SkyCity Online players between February 2020 and February 2026. This is a period that includes several years prior to the June 2025 legislative amendments.
Super Group Included Through Multi-Entity Structure
Super Group is also involved in the legal challenge, with CEO Neal Menashe named alongside multiple entities. These entities include Bayton, DigiMedia, Digamma, GM Gaming, Baytree Alderney, and Baytree Interactive.
Super Group operates international gambling brands including Betway and Spin. The legal proceedings have attracted high-profile legal representation, with Davey Salmon KC acting for claimants and David Cooper KC representing defendants. This underlines the potential significance of the cases.
New Zealand Offshore Gambling Laws Put to the Test
The proceedings are expected to test how New Zealand’s strengthened offshore gambling restrictions apply in practice. Bet365’s jurisdiction argument could determine whether overseas operators can be sued locally. Meanwhile, SkyCity’s reliance on third-party operating agreements may shape how responsibility is assigned in complex B2B arrangements.
Justice Gault noted the potential relationship between the cases but has not yet agreed to consolidate them. Interim name suppression remains in place as the court reviews procedural issues and legal arguments.
High Stakes as Online Gambling Enforcement Intensifies
The SkyCity claim stands out due to its proposed class action scope, which could significantly expand claimant reach if approved. Meanwhile, the Bet365 jurisdiction challenge raises broader questions about cross-border enforcement. Furthermore, Super Group’s involvement highlights how multinational operators often rely on layered corporate structures.
Together, the cases reflect a new enforcement phase following New Zealand’s June 2025 law change. If successful, the legal actions could reshape how international operators approach New Zealand players. They could also accelerate regulatory pressure on offshore gambling access.
