BetCity wants fine kept secret, but fails
•
13 Nov 2025 •
Reading time: 2 minutes BetCity the well-known Dutch online gambling platform tried to stop the publication of a multi-million fine, but was not vindicated by the court. The Kansspelautoriteit may simply disclose the €2.65 million penalty imposed, despite BetCity’s pending appeal.
The dispute revolves around a fine imposed on parent company Betent for failing to comply with its duty of care between October 2021 and March 2023. According to the regulator, the breaches involved serious risks to players.
BetCity wanted to avoid announcing the fine before a final ruling. However, the court found that transparency and consumer interest outweighed potential reputational damage.
Attempt to block publication fails in summary proceedings
In February 2025, the first scheduled publication was scheduled, but BetCity applied for injunctive relief. The court then granted a stay. In the end, the fine was not published until 18 September, after BetCity again opposed the decision.
In the latest ruling, the judge did not look at the content of the fine, but purely at the question: can the fine already be published even though the appeal is still pending? The answer was yes.
According to the judge, BetCity had not properly substantiated the damages. Moreover, the Gaming Authority emphasised in the publication that the fine was not yet final. This would limit the risk of reputational damage.
A previous case in which BetCity was also embroiled around a €172,000 jackpot also showed that legal conflicts are more common for this gambling company.
Belgian situation similar with penalties for licensed providers
Although this is a Dutch case, it is relevant to the Belgian market. Again, licensed providers are supervised by the gaming commission and fines can be made public. Transparency on penalties is also growing in Belgium, especially now that controls on marketing and duty of care are being stepped up.
In addition, BetCity is regularly the subject of discussion, partly because of legal disputes surrounding its acquisition by Entain.
The Dutch court’s ruling shows that regulators are increasingly prioritising player interests. And that licensed companies are also accountable – whether they like it or not.