Unibet Faces Scrutiny for Blocking Gambler Lawsuits in the Netherlands

Malta-based gambling giant Unibet has faced criticism for blocking lawsuits from former gamblers in the Netherlands who are hoping to recover millions in gambling losses. The lawsuits stem from Unibet’s operations in the country before online gambling was legalized in October 2021. Several customers have succeeded with their legal action, likely prompting the company to take preemptive measures.

These Measures Have Prompted New Legal Action

Despite the extended waiting periods, many clients report that they can no longer access their account details due to an alleged change in the company’s working methods. Speaking for Dutch news outlet De Telegraaf, lawyer Benzi Loonstein, who represents thousands of aggrieved gamblers through his law firm, has accused the company of deliberately stalling the process.

Until 27 April 2024, the day the judge awarded the first damages, everything was fine. Then Unibet started to delay.

Benzi Loonstein

Loonstein noted that updated regulations in Malta reportedly prohibited the provision of the data. Customers received a response that their account details were not traceable due to a company name change. Loonstein asserts that this action constitutes intentional sabotage, alleging that Malta has prohibited Unibet from sharing the required data.

Loonstein has initiated legal proceedings on behalf of several clients, fighting to restore customer access to essential transaction data like deposit and withdrawal records. He also urged Dutch politicians and regulators to enhance consumer protection measures, advocating for more stringent licensing requirements for gambling companies that infringe upon consumer rights.

Customers Are Left with Little Recourse

Unibet has acknowledged the challenges but framed them as the result of legal complexities related to a change of ownership. The online betting company, now operating under its Maltese license holder Trannel, was divested by its former parent company, Kindred Group, which sold its international operations to La Française des Jeux (FDJ).

Responding to this rising controversy, Unibet indicated that gamblers may review their financial transactions via their banks. However, Loonstein contends that this is an inadequate solution. He countered that banks do not reflect transactions via intermediaries like PayPal,  while their transaction history only goes back five to eight years.

It is an excuse that distracts from their obligation to provide the data. A retailer you ask for a receipt from does not say: just look at your bank statements?

Benzi Loonstein

Unibet’s legal and reputational challenges in the Netherlands will likely continue. The operator has already repaid over €2 million ($2.04 million) in damages, including a record €700,000 ($714,000) settlement to a gambler in Hengelo. As this newest legal process unfolds, the outcome could set a precedent for how gambling operators address legacy issues. While Unibet maintains its commitment to compliance, rising controversy could jeopardize its standing in the Dutch market.