Kansspelautoriteit (KSA), the Dutch gambling authority, has continued its chase of Gammix Limited and a €19.7m fine imposed on the operator for illegal offerings in the country.
KSA handed Gammix a €19.7m fine for offering online gambling to players in the Dutch market without the appropriate licence from the KSA in February last year.
The Dutch authority stated that Gammix offers illegal online gambling on several websites that are available to players in the Netherlands and that it has “not taken any measures to exclude players” from playing in the country.
Sites mentioned in the complaint include:
- rantcasino
- betoriginal
- bluvegas
- cashimashi
- goslot
- nordslot
- vegadream
- scatters
Chasing the fine owed, the KSA has published documentation supporting its decision, including providing documentation explaining the process for estimating Gammix’s turnover.
Referencing the Open Government Act, the authority cited that its board of directors has “declared Gammix’s objections to the decision to impose an administrative fine and the decision to make the information public unfounded”.
The Dutch authority argued that the publication of the decision was necessary in order to inform the public about unlicensed operators and the risks attached to them, as well as provide transparency on the KSA’s processes.
Using a method involving search volume statistics from Google Ads, the KSA estimated the gross gaming result of Gammix, coming to the conclusion that the turnover for the operator in 2022 in the Netherlands through multiple websites was estimated to be €52.4m. Globally, the authority has estimated this figure to be €1.8bn.
Following publication of the turnover estimation process, the advisory committee, which is responsible for the investigation, also found no reason to mitigate the financial penalty imposed on Gammix. The operator has the right to object to the decision made by the KSA before the District Court of The Hague.
The KSA previously issued a €4m fine to Gammix for its illegal offerings in the Dutch market. The operator disagreed with the authority’s ruling.
