Three separate High Court proceedings in Auckland have been filed against bet365, Super Group, and Skycity, marking a significant legal challenge to offshore online gambling services offered to residents in New Zealand. The cases are being pursued in a coordinated way, although they have not yet been formally consolidated for joint case management. A temporary suppression order has also been granted to protect the identities of the plaintiffs.
At the center of the litigation is a broad legal question: whether offshore gambling operators that served New Zealand users can be exposed to restitution claims in local courts, even when those services were provided through entities licensed in other jurisdictions. The proceedings arrive at a pivotal moment, as New Zealand tightens its gambling laws while also preparing to open a regulated licensing framework for online casino operators.
Skycity Case Focuses on Online Casino Losses
The Skycity proceeding names Skycity Entertainment Group, Skycity Auckland Holdings Limited, and Malta-based Silvereye Entertainment Limited as defendants. Silvereye, a subsidiary of Gaming Innovation Group, operates the Skycity Online casino platform under a Malta Gaming Authority license. Skycity previously disclosed the proceedings to the NZX on March 6, saying the lawsuit was intended to test the lawfulness of online gaming operations run by Silvereye on behalf of an overseas Skycity subsidiary.
The claim against Skycity includes an application for leave to proceed as a funded class action, covering losses allegedly incurred by New Zealand players between February 2020 and February 2026. Skycity has denied liability and said it will actively defend the case. According to reporting cited in the source material, the class-action period could encompass at least NZ$64.5 million in online revenue, underscoring the potential financial significance of the litigation.
The structure of the Skycity claim is notable because it echoes a recent ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union. That ruling found that Malta-licensed operators could not rely solely on home-jurisdiction authorization to block civil restitution claims from players in EU member states where the gambling activity was prohibited. While that ECJ decision is not binding in New Zealand, it offers a legal parallel that may be persuasive in arguments about cross-border liability and the limits of offshore licensing protection.
bet365 Challenges New Zealand Court Jurisdiction
The proceeding against bet365 names Hillside (Gaming) ENC, Hillside (Sports), and bet365 chief executive Denise Coates personally as defendants. The company has formally objected to the jurisdiction of New Zealand courts, making the procedural battle over forum and authority one of the most closely watched elements of the wider dispute.
This jurisdictional challenge could have consequences extending beyond the immediate case. If New Zealand courts conclude they can hear claims tied to offshore gambling activity aimed at local residents, that may strengthen the position of plaintiffs seeking restitution from foreign operators. If the objection succeeds, however, it could narrow the practical reach of domestic enforcement against gambling platforms that are structured through overseas entities and licenses.
Because bet365 has also publicly expressed interest in applying for a New Zealand license when the market opens, the case highlights a tension that could define the next phase of the country’s online gambling policy: operators may be seeking future access to a regulated market while simultaneously contesting liability for past activity directed at the same jurisdiction.
Super Group and Direct Marketing to New Zealand Players
The proceeding involving Super Group names chief executive Neal Menashe personally, alongside a range of corporate entities including Bayton, DigiMedia, Digamma, GM Gaming, Baytree Alderney, and Baytree Interactive. Super Group operates globally known brands such as Betway and Spin, and the source material notes that it also marketed the Kiwi’s Treasure online casino directly to New Zealand players.
The inclusion of multiple entities and senior executives reflects the complexity of modern offshore gambling structures. Many operators serve international users through layered corporate arrangements involving licensing entities, regional marketing vehicles, and brand operators across several jurisdictions. In legal disputes of this kind, plaintiffs often attempt to show that these structures should not prevent accountability in the country where consumers were targeted and losses were incurred.
New Zealand Tightens Offshore Gambling Rules
The lawsuits come after significant legislative changes in New Zealand. Amendments made in June 2025 to the Racing Industry Act 2020 made it illegal for offshore operators other than TAB NZ to accept racing or sports bets from New Zealand residents. This reform marked a clear policy shift toward restricting offshore access and concentrating lawful wagering channels under a tighter domestic framework.
The regulatory overhaul is expected to go further with the Online Casino Gambling Bill. From May 1, the bill is expected to extend prohibitions to online casino advertising while also establishing a formal licensing regime for up to 15 operators. Unlicensed providers would be required to exit the market by a December 1 deadline. This dual-track approach—tighter prohibition combined with selective licensing—suggests that New Zealand is moving away from a lightly policed offshore-access model toward a more centralized and enforceable system.
That timing makes the current litigation especially important. It is unfolding just as the country is deciding who may legally participate in the future online gambling market. As a result, the cases are not merely backward-looking disputes over alleged historical harm; they may also affect how regulators, courts, and the public evaluate the fitness of major operators seeking entry into the licensed regime.
Why the Cases Matter
The proceedings against bet365, Super Group, and Skycity illustrate a broader legal and regulatory trend: countries are increasingly scrutinizing offshore operators that served local users before clear domestic frameworks were in place. The central issue is no longer just whether a company held a valid foreign license, but whether that foreign authorization can shield it from consumer claims in the jurisdiction where the gambling occurred.
For New Zealand, these cases could help define the boundaries of liability for offshore gambling platforms and clarify whether players can pursue restitution through local courts. For operators, the litigation creates a difficult balancing act—defend past business models while positioning for future compliance. And for other jurisdictions considering similar enforcement or private claims, the eventual rulings may provide a closely watched reference point, especially where Malta-licensed or similarly structured platforms are involved.
Among the three matters, bet365’s jurisdiction objection may prove particularly influential. Its outcome could shape not only the path of the current litigation but also the broader legal question of how far domestic courts can reach when offshore operators target residents over the internet. As New Zealand moves toward a regulated licensing framework, the answer may become one of the most important legal precedents in the country’s evolving online gambling landscape.