RTM v Bonne Terre Ltd & Anor [2026] EWCA Civ 488 (21 April 2026)

RTM v Bonne Terre Ltd & Anor [2026] EWCA Civ 488 (21 April 2026)

Consent for the purposes of GDPR, PECR, and related legislation is an objective concept, requiring an outward, affirmative indication of agreement that is freely given, specific, informed, and unambiguous. The subjective state of mind or vulnerability of the data subject is not determinative unless known to the data controller. The High Court judge erred in law by treating RTM's gambling addiction and impaired autonomy as vitiating consent, and by deciding the case on a basis not argued by the parties. The appeal is allowed and the High Court's decision on liability is set aside.

Citation
[2026] EWCA Civ 488
Parties
Claimant/respondent: RTM; Defendant/appellant: Bonne Terre Limited; Defendant/appellant: Hestview Limited; Intervener: The Information Commissioner
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 April 2026
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court (king's Bench Division, Media and Communications List)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court decision on liability set aside; remittal for further consideration of issues and consequential orders.
Legal Topics
Consent Under GDPR and PECR, Objective Vs Subjective Consent, Direct Marketing, Cookies and Personal Data Processing, Vulnerability and Autonomy in Consent, Remittal for Further Consideration
Data Protection Privacy Electronic Communications Contract Consent Under GDPR and PECR Objective Vs Subjective Consent Direct Marketing Cookies and Personal Data Processing +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

RTM

Claimant/respondent

Bonne Terre Limited

Defendant/appellant

Hestview Limited

Defendant/appellant

The Information Commissioner

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court (king's Bench Division, Media and Communications List)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What constitutes valid consent for cookies, personal data processing, and direct marketing under GDPR, PECR, and related legislation?
  2. 2 Is the test for consent objective or does it include a subjective element based on the individual's state of mind or vulnerability?
  3. 3 Did the High Court judge err in law by focusing on the claimant's gambling addiction and impaired autonomy as vitiating consent?

Ratio Decidendi

Consent for the purposes of GDPR, PECR, and related legislation is an objective concept, requiring an outward, affirmative indication of agreement that is freely given, specific, informed, and unambiguous. The subjective state of mind or vulnerability of the data subject is not determinative unless known to the data controller. The High Court judge erred in law by treating RTM's gambling addiction and impaired autonomy as vitiating consent, and by deciding the case on a basis not argued by the parties. The appeal is allowed and the High Court's decision on liability is set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court decision on liability set aside; remittal for further consideration of issues and consequential orders.

Orders

  • High Court's decision on liability is set aside.
  • Parties to make submissions on issues to be remitted and consequential orders.