Court Rules in Favor of Kindred in Per Holknekt Case

Kindred Group has been spared some trouble as the Stockholm District Court ruled in its favor in the lawsuit by Per Holknekt, a Swedish fashion designer and entrepreneur. The plaintiff now has to pay SEK 2 million ($190,000) to cover the operator’s legal costs.

The lawsuit was filed in July 2022 and saw Holknekt claim that Kindred’s Unibet brand had taken advantage of his gambling addiction. He alleged that Unibet bombarded him with aggressive marketing despite his problems, tempting him to wager more money.

As Holknekt claimed that Kindred exacerbated his addiction and took advantage of his problem gambling, he sought SEK 10 million ($950,000) in damages. For reference, the fashion designer had spent SEK 26 million with the operator over 15 years.

Kindred, on the other hand, refuted Holknekt’s claims, questioning whether he had been really harmed as much as he says. The gambling company pointed out that the man’s business has been doing well as he started a new company, appeared on radio broadcasts and released an autobiography.

The trial finally went underway last month but, unfortunately for Holknekt, ended in Kindred triumph. The judge ruled in favor of the gambling company because Holknekt’s dealings were with the Unibet brand, which is, in fact, owned by Trannel.

According to the final verdict, there was nothing to suggest that the group itself has made any illegal profits from Holknekt. In addition, the court said that it is uncertain whether Kindred is at all covered by Swedish laws, considering that it is registered in Malta.

Gambling Companies Should Be Careful

While Holknekt failed to emerge victorious, the case demonstrates the increasing legal pressure gambling companies face in regulated markets. As safer gambling continues to be a core pillar of legal gambling ecosystems, consumers are becoming more likely to take action against companies that might have exploited their betting behavior.

Last year, for example, Bettson was forced to pay back SEK 5.8 million to a customer whom it had failed to protect.