Eyes of the iGaming world will be intrigued by the decision of the Rotterdam District Court, which has ordered Betsson Group to pay €385,377 to a Dutch customer.
The customer in question stated that they have lost substantial sums of money gaming with unlicensed websites, and pursued a legal case against BML Group Limited and Corona Limited, two of Betsson Group’s subsidiaries.
The plaintiff has stated that the bets placed with Betsson and Kroon were staked before the group’s takeover of Holland Gaming Technology, a local licence holder/ This meant that the companies were unlicensed operators at the time.
As a result, the company has been ordered to pay the player €385,377 to cover losses and has also been told that it will have to pay an additional fee of €92 every day that the court order is not followed. This will start from 14 days after the court’s 9 April judgment.
Could Bill 55 play a role?
Bill 55 may well play a role in the case as it unfolds. The bill serves to strengthen Maltese safeguards from international legal action from other jurisdictions.
Recently, the Maltese court has ruled in two separate cases that Austrian courts do not have the power to dictate whether gaming operators in Malta compensate Austrian players.
The cases centre around two gamblers, who both lost significant amounts with a Maltese operator.
Between 2017 and 2019, Gerhard Posch spent €40,500 with TSG Interactive Gaming Europe, which he later tried to recoup when he pursued a requisition order against the company.
Philipp Wahl also looked to secure a case against European Lotto and Betting, after he lost €38,000 over an 11-day span.
The Austrian framework currently deems any overseas operator as being illegal in the country.
The decision marks a shift in the legal trajectory of the case, with Austrian courts having previously ruled in favour of the players. However, the Maltese court has reached a different conclusion.
Although courts in Austria both sided with the players, the Maltese courts rejected these arguments. In Malta, both operators claimed that free market principles and EU laws around free movement of services made the Austrian decision invalid.
