Unibet: scandals, fines and an uncertain future
•
4 Dec 2025 •
Reading time: 3 minutes For years, Unibet has dominated the online gaming market in the Netherlands. But the road to 2027 is shaping up to be a tricky one. Several court rulings, record penalties and accusations of serious breaches of player protection are weighing heavily on the future of the betting giant. Will Unibet really be able to keep its licence in 2027?
A history of prolonged illegality and forced reparations
For almost 20 years, Unibet has allegedly operated without a legal licence on the Dutch market. Courts have already ordered the company to make massive restitution for sums lost by players. For example, the Rechtbank Den Haag ordered Unibet’s former entity, Trannel International Limited, to reimburse a player €271,301.04 because he did not have a licence at the time of betting. Another decision, by the Rechtbank Noord-Nederland, required Unibet to repay more than €93,000 following losses incurred prior to the 2021 regulation.
These convictions are not just anecdotal: they illustrate the heavy and damning liabilities of several years of illegal operations – liabilities that the courts are beginning to recognise and punish.
Player protection widely flouted
The charge most often levelled against Unibet is that it breached its duty of care, i.e. its obligation to ensure that players are protected, particularly against excessive gambling.
In December 2025, the Kansspelautoriteit (Ksa) imposed a record fine of €4 million on Unibet (via its parent company Optdeck Service Limited) for failing to meet this obligation. According to the Ksa, the company did not react sufficiently to the alarming signals: some players were making large deposits every day, without any checks or serious intervention being carried out. The easy-to-close pop-ups and the delay in requesting information on players’ income were deemed irresponsible.
In addition, in 2024, Unibet had already been fined €400,000 for allowing players on the Cruks voluntary exclusion register (a tool designed to prevent problem gambling) to continue playing.
These failings highlight dangerous practices: a long-standing player that, despite its size, failed to take the minimum measures to protect vulnerable players.
Denial of access to data, legal action
For many former players, recovering their losses depends on access to data on their past bets and losses. For a long time, however, Unibet refused to provide this history, making any claim for reimbursement virtually impossible.
But since 2025, things have been changing. The Rechtbank Amsterdam ruled that a player was entitled to access his transaction data, a right guaranteed by the legislation on the protection of personal data (RGPD/AVG). Unibet was ordered to hand over this information or face a fine of up to €10,000.
2027: critical deadline for Unibet’s licence
Officially, Unibet’s licence issued by the Ksa expires on 7 June 2027. But the revalidation of this authorisation is far from certain. The Ksa has issued a public warning: renewal is not automatic, and the operator’s track record is a factor.
Several criteria are problematic: court convictions, substantial fines, management practices deemed irresponsible, and a history of refusing to be transparent. All of these weigh heavily in the assessment of Unibet’s compliance with regulatory requirements. In addition, some industry players are publicly calling for the licence to be withdrawn.
The victims behind the figures
Behind the legal terms and fine amounts, there are real people to be reckoned with. One former player, named in an April 2024 court case, had lost a considerable amount of money between 2014 and 2018 and, according to the account, had stolen from his employer to continue playing. His father had to act as guarantor to cover €70,000 of debts; the player himself spent more than 3 years in rehabilitation.
The Unibet case illustrates the complexity of online betting, between legality, liability and personal tragedy. The courts have begun to deliver justice – not only by forcing restitution of losses, but also by recognising players’ right to their personal data.