BetCity riot: Former owners fight back in lawsuit with Entain

The dispute between Entain and the former owners of BetCity takes a new twist. The former owners accuse Entain of violating the agreement and are demanding damages.

In May, Entain filed a claim in court, alleging that BetCity’s former owners had wrongly filed a counterclaim. Entain stated that BetCity’s bonus costs had been calculated incorrectly and that the proposed VAT exemption was not possible.

The former owners of BetCity now refute these accusations in a thirteen-page response. They argue that Entain increased the bonus costs without their consent and that the VAT exemption was indeed possible through Entain’s offices in Malta and Gibraltar.

Point of discussion

One of the central points in the discussion is the amount of BetCity’s bonus costs in 2023. Entain claims that the costs were unfairly high and that the former owners have violated the agreement. The former owners, on the other hand, state that the bonus costs were increased in consultation in anticipation of the ban on untargeted advertising.

They point out that Entain only asked for formal approval eight months after the increase and that the argument of the advertising ban does not hold water, as this has been known for a long time. Moreover, according to them, one should not only look at the bonus costs, but at the total picture of BetCity’s results in 2023.

VAT exemption

Another point of contention is the issue of VAT exemption. Entain claims that the proposed structure was not possible within the Dutch tax system. The former owners, on the other hand, argue that the structure was indeed possible and that it was included in the business plan and the purchase agreement.

They point out that Entain could use its offices in Malta and Gibraltar to reduce VAT costs. This would be a common practice for international companies such as Entain, and would not be a violation of the agreement, according to them.

What now?

The judge will now have to assess the arguments of both parties and determine who is right. The outcome of the case could have major consequences for both parties.

Entain can claim significant damages if it is proven that the former owners of BetCity have violated the agreement. The former owners, on the other hand, can in turn submit a claim if it turns out that Entain has wrongly increased the bonus costs and refused the VAT exemption.