Unibet Licence Under Scrutiny

Imagine a top-tier gambling operator facing licence suspension for allegedly withholding crucial player data.

That is the reality now unfolding in the Netherlands, where Unibet stands accused of ignoring past obligations.

Think of outraged politicians pressing the KSA to strip a prominent brand of its permission to operate.

Read on to discover how thousands of affected players, two determined MPs, and a lawyer’s crusade might reshape Dutch gambling.

Dutch MPs Demand Unibet Licence Probe: Can Past Practices Trigger Suspension?

3 Key Points

1. MPs Michiel van Nispen and Mirjam Bikker seek to revoke or suspend Unibet’s Dutch licence.
2. Lawyer Benzi Loonstein claims Unibet withholds transaction data essential for historical refund claims.
3. Kindred cites a GDPR standoff, plus ownership changes, to explain delayed or missing data provision.

Two Dutch MPs are pushing for a thorough investigation of Unibet’s Netherlands gambling licence, with potential for suspension or even revocation. They argue that Unibet, owned by the Kindred Group, still refuses to address alleged “illegal practices from the past.” The operator is accused of blocking crucial transaction records that players need in court to recover historical losses.

Controversy Over Data Withholding

In a letter to the Dutch House of Representatives, attorney Benzi Loonstein accuses Unibet of deliberate sabotage. He represents thousands of clients at Loonstein Advocaten. According to Loonstein, Unibet denies them access to deposit and withdrawal information, crucial for verifying each gambler’s loss tally.

Unibet defends itself by citing complications under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). It highlights differences between Malta’s approach and Dutch enforcement. The operator also points out that a surge in data requests from Dutch customers has overwhelmed its capacity.

Historical Context of the Dispute

The trouble originates from Unibet’s pre-2021 presence in the Dutch market. For years, online gaming lacked official Dutch regulation. But courts recently declared such unlicensed operations “void,” mandating refunds for gambler losses incurred from 2004 to 2021.

Initially, Unibet complied, issuing some reimbursements. Loonstein contends that once initial payouts concluded, the operator began delaying further data releases. Allegedly, it stretched the legal 30-day GDPR window to 90, then 180, and ultimately ceased cooperation.

Ownership Changes Add Confusion

Kindred claims its sale to La Française des Jeux (FDJ) complicated matters. Trannel Limited, the unit that oversaw Unibet in the Netherlands, was divested after the sale. Kindred says it no longer has control over how these GDPR requests are handled. However, critics dismiss this as an excuse for ignoring players’ rights.

Unibet, for its part, suggests customers recover historical transaction records from their banks. Loonstein counters that typical bank statements cover only five to eight years. Many claims date back to 2004, involving third-party payment services that do not list “Unibet” explicitly.

MPs Want Licence Scrutiny

Now, Michiel van Nispen (Socialist Party) and Mirjam Bikker (Christian Union) are stepping in. They submitted parliamentary questions to State Secretary for Justice and Security, Teun Struycken. They want to know if Unibet’s rationale holds up legally. They also wonder if Unibet’s licence can be suspended or revoked. They call for potential penalties against Unibet, urging the KSA (Dutch gambling regulator) to act decisively.

So far, the KSA keeps quiet about specific repercussions for Unibet, calling it a “civil legal matter.” However, the regulator confirms it will review if a licence holder flouts obligations after a judicial ruling. Should the KSA decide Unibet’s behaviour violates compliance, the operator’s Dutch presence could be at risk.

The Bigger Picture

The timing is critical. In June, the Dutch Supreme Court was asked to clarify if gamblers can recoup all losses from unlicensed online providers. Loonstein expects a decision soon. If the Supreme Court rules in players’ favour, any operator’s refusal to share historical data would appear especially problematic.

Meanwhile, others point to a potential ripple effect, possibly prompting calls for updated legislation. Unibet is not alone in navigating these complexities. The broader question: Will other operators follow a similar path, or do they swiftly comply?

Dutch MPs’ demands to investigate and possibly revoke Unibet’s licence cast a spotlight on the ongoing clash between Kindred and thousands of disgruntled customers. The crux remains whether Unibet truly “sabotages” requests or simply wrestles with a tangled GDPR scenario. Whatever the outcome, the next few months may be pivotal. The forthcoming Supreme Court decision, plus potential KSA enforcement, could rewrite the rules for all foreign operators who once served the Dutch market without local approval.