In December 2025, Kenny Alexander and Lee Feldman, previously at the helm of gambling giant Entain, filed a lawsuit against the UK Gambling Commission (UKGC). The issue stems from the Commission’s role in what the former executives claim was the unlawful disclosure of private information during their attempt to take control of 888 Holdings. This legal action follows a failed takeover bid that has been marred by allegations of past misconduct in Turkey.
Alexander and Feldman began making headlines in 2023 when they spearheaded FS Gaming, an investment entity that quietly bought a 6.5% stake in 888 Holdings. Their strategic aim was to assume leadership positions at the parent company of William Hill, amidst a backdrop of financial instability, strategic confusion, and frequent leadership turnovers at 888.
However, their ambitions were short-lived. The UK Gambling Commission intervened, alerting 888 Holdings of a potential license review. The Commission cited concerns related to Alexander and Feldman’s previous tenure at Entain as part of its rationale. The board of 888, wary of increased scrutiny and potential complications, promptly withdrew from negotiations. Central to these concerns was an HMRC investigation, dubbed Operation Incendiary, which implicated the duo in activities deemed high-risk.
In response, Alexander and Feldman have launched a legal challenge against the regulator, arguing that its conduct extended far beyond appropriate oversight. They accuse the UKGC of influencing 888’s decision to release a market statement that disclosed the license review and pointed to issues linked with their past roles. Their lawyers assert that this amounted to a misuse of confidential information and a violation of trust, inflicting “damage, distress, and embarrassment” upon the executives.
As the lawsuit unfolds, the timing coincides with the looming criminal trials set for 2028-2029, involving Alexander, Feldman, and nine others. They face accusations of conspiracy to bribe, conspiracy to defraud, fraudulent trading, and tax evasion, all tied to their leadership positions at GVC Holdings and its operations in Turkey. The trials are expected to command significant attention, given the seriousness of the charges and the profiles of those involved.
During court proceedings, Feldman admitted that he was aware of Alexander’s status as a suspect during negotiations with 888. This admission, according to the Commission, justified their intervention. The regulator maintains that it revealed no truly private information, standing by its actions as necessary and prudent. However, Alexander and Feldman contend that the Commission’s actions prematurely suggested a negative judgment regarding their fitness for leadership, despite no conclusions yet from the criminal proceedings.
The fallout of the Commission’s involvement has been profound for both Feldman and Alexander. Feldman claims the scrutiny has severely damaged his career, leaving him isolated in professional circles. Alexander argues that the incident has compounded existing reputational damage. With the criminal proceedings still years away and the civil case now active, this legal conflict adds layers of complexity to an already intricate saga involving two notorious figures in the UK gambling sector.
This lawsuit against the UKGC highlights persistent tensions between regulatory oversight and corporate ambitions within the gambling industry. The sector has faced increasing scrutiny as countries worldwide tighten regulations to address concerns over gambling addiction and financial crime. The UK, in particular, has taken steps in recent years to strengthen its regulatory framework, aiming to balance economic benefits from the gambling industry against social responsibilities and consumer protection.
Yet, the case of Alexander and Feldman raises questions about the boundaries of regulatory power and corporate governance. Critics argue that while regulatory oversight is crucial, the manner and timing of interventions must be carefully calibrated to avoid undue harm to individuals and entities pending legal outcomes. On the other hand, proponents of the UKGC’s actions emphasize the need for vigilance, especially when historical actions suggest potential risks to the integrity of the industry.
A potential risk in this legal entanglement is the reputational impact on 888 Holdings, which remains caught in the crossfire of the legal and regulatory battle. The company must navigate the fallout from the incident, ensuring that its operations and market position remain stable amid prolonged uncertainty. Additionally, the broader implications for the gambling industry in the UK could include heightened scrutiny and more stringent regulatory measures as authorities seek to reinforce the sector’s integrity.
As the legal processes continue, the outcomes of both the civil and criminal cases will likely influence the future landscape of gambling regulation and corporate governance in the UK. Stakeholders across the industry are closely watching these proceedings to gauge the balance between regulatory authority and corporate freedom. Whether the actions of the UKGC are adjudged as necessary diligence or overreach will have lasting consequences for former executives, regulatory practices, and the broader gambling community.
