Dutch television program Radar investigates lawsuits against Unibet  

In the consumer program Radar of AvroTros, there has been a lot of commotion about the summary proceedings that have been initiated against Unibet. At Radar, they were only too happy to investigate this matter and asked the Dutch Kansspelautoriteit and State Secretary Teun Struycken to respond in writing. This episode was broadcast on NPO2 on May 26. 

Multiple players file lawsuit against gambling company Unibet  

It recently became clear that multiple lawsuits are pending against Unibet. For example, the advocacy group Gokverliesterug filed a lawsuit last year to recover the lost money of countless players. The focus here is on the period before 2021 when Unibet was still active without a Ksa license and online gambling was not yet legalized in the Netherlands. Because Unibet operated without a license at the time, their winnings before that time are seen as illegal income and they refuse to give players access to their data.  

Former professional footballer Tom Beugelsdijk has also filed a summary action, together with lawyer Benzi Loonstein. Tom Beugelsdijk wanted to gain access to his playing data and more specifically how much money he would have lost in the period before 2021. He estimates his loss at around 100 000 euros. One day before the summary proceedings in the court of The Hague, he was allowed to view his playing data. 

Lawyer Benzi Loonstein, who represents him and other Dutch gamblers, was not happy with the timing of the information. He is therefore demanding 20 000 euros from the parent company behind Unibet as compensation for the legal costs. 

Unibet takeover causes difficulties  

What exactly is the deal with the takeover and why is it causing such a stir? Française des Jeux is the parent company that took over Unibet. But the company Trannel International Limited, which managed Unibet before there was a license, is not included in this takeover. As a result, FDJ does not have access to data from years ago.  

Unibet told Radar the following:  

“The situation surrounding the non-sharing of historical payment and gaming data is more complex than is often presented. Our approach in this regard is part of an ongoing legal case. We dispute the allegations, but will not make any further substantive statements while the proceedings are ongoing.” 

FDJ also responded in turn by stating that they are not involved in the lawsuits filed by players against Trannel International Limited: 

“Regarding the Trannel court rulings, FDJ UNITED is not involved in these court cases and therefore cannot answer any questions.” 

Criticism of approach by State Secretary and Kansspelautoriteit 

In the television broadcast, CDA Member of Parliament Derk Boswijk also spoke and criticized Unibet’s working methods and, together with Benzi Loonstein, again urged action against the gambling company in the hope that State Secretary Struycken would take stricter action against gambling companies that refuse to provide insight into transaction data.  

Benzi Loonstein also points to the Kansspelautoriteit to be more assertive in their approach and points out the three responsibilities that fall under their authority: protecting consumers, combating fraud and crime, and preventing gambling addiction. Attorney Loonstein emphasizes protecting consumers as the most important pillar surrounding this case and why the role of the Kansspelautoriteit is essential.  

State Secretary Struycken and the Kansspelautoriteit share their vision 

Radar asked State Secretary Struycken for a response regarding the perception that various gambling companies are trying to circumvent the rulings of the Dutch court.  

State Secretary Struycken: 

“I expect permit holders in the Netherlands to comply with court rulings, even when this is a ruling that concerns the period before the permit was granted. After all, the permit was granted under Dutch law and the permit holder must therefore act in accordance with Dutch rules and comply with court rulings on the application of those rules.” 

Struycken indicates that he is closely following developments such as the preliminary questions to the Supreme Court and expects that legal online casinos will adhere to court rulings and that contractual agreements from the past may not be disregarded. He also points out that no gambling company has yet invoked the controversial Maltese law Bill 55 in a Dutch lawsuit. This law was approved in 2023 and protects gambling companies with a license from the Malta Kansspelautoriteit (MGA) against lawsuits from other EU member states.  

State Secretary Struycken: 

“As far as I know, there is currently no concrete case from the Netherlands where Malta has refused to execute a judgment. This is the case in other European countries.” 

Kansspelautoriteit decides on withdrawal or granting of license 

If a licensee does not comply with the rules, the Kansspelautoriteit (Ksa) decides what to do with their license. They also responded in Radar and say they are keeping a close eye on the situation.  

They recently spoke with gambling company Optdeck, which operates Unibet in the Netherlands: 

Response from the Kansspelautoriteit: 

“The party against which these lawsuits are pending (Trannel) is a different party than the one to which the Ksa granted a license in 2022 (namely Optdeck). Until October 1st, 2021, Trannel offered illegal games of chance under the brand name Unibet. The Ksa expects its licensees (in general, not just specifically this case) to act with integrity and not to attempt to frustrate lawsuits from players.” 

“The Ksa recently spoke to Optdeck about this issue. We indicated to Optdeck that we find the method that Kindred (the former parent company of Trannel and the current parent company of Optdeck) set up at the time with regard to the transaction data very undesirable. Based on the data available to us, we believe that it makes it more difficult for players in their legal cases against this provider.” 

The Kansspelautoriteit also stated that the non-repayment of gambling losses, if a judge has decided to do so, may result in the reliability of a provider and its shareholders being reviewed. This may also have an impact on the possible extension or renewal of the provider.  

Consumer program Kassa also investigated this situation at the beginning of April  

Kassa’s vision is in line with Radar’s, namely that Unibet is evading its responsibility and has not complied with the rules. According to Kassa, Unibet went wrong with the playing limits, but they did not distinguish between setting a deposit limit and the checks when this limit was exceeded. 

They also looked at how Unibet functioned since legalization, but made a few mistakes. They stated that gamblers who had registered with Cruks still received emails from Unibet. According to Kassa, this should not be possible, but they forget that legal gambling sites cannot see who is registered with Cruks. The list is based on the law of privacy. The situation around Unibet remains a point of attention.