Dutch Gambling Authority Dismiss Mr Green Appeal
William Hill subsidiary Mr Green has lost its appeal against a fine issued by the Dutch Gambling Authority. The Court of The Hague dismissed a challenge by the operator over a fine issued for accepting Dutch players.
Mr Green Loses Dutch Fine Appeal © Unsplash.
Mr Green has been unsuccessful in its attempts to have a €312,500 (£267,284) Dutch Gambling Authority (KSA) punishment reduced or dismissed after a court in The Hague agreed with the Dutch Gambling Authority.
The William Hill subsidiary was initially ordered to pay more than a quarter of a million pounds for failing to prevent Dutch players from gambling on its websites in September 2018.
The operator fell foul of the country’s rules which order companies to use IP blocking technology under the so-called ‘prioritisation’ criteria to ensure that no Dutch players access international online gambling sites.
Under Dutch law, operators are subject to an assessment from the Dutch Gambling Authority in which they determine if an online operator is trying to appeal or entice Dutch players.
These criteria are numerous and include; any content on a sports betting site, online casino or any other form of gambling site that is in the Dutch language. Any operator that uses the .nl extension, as that lettering signifies that the website is of Dutch origin. Any imagery or content that a visitor could associate with the Netherlands (for example, Dutch clogs, windmills or pictures of Tulips).
Another way an operator can break the rules is by accepting the iDeal payment method, which is a popular form of payment for goods and services in the Netherlands although it is not considered as one of the best betting deposit methods.
Any company not using geolocation technology to block players is subject to an audit from the Dutch Gambling Authority.
In Mr Green’s appeal, the operator claimed that the initial judgment made in September 2018 shouldn’t have been made public. However, this argument was dismissed by judges in December 2018, who stated that transparency was essential for regulation breaches.
The Dutch market represents just over 5% of Mr Green’s revenues (around £2.2m), but the operator decided to appeal despite calling the loss of this market “insignificant” on a Q2 revenue call. Mr Green was initially fined €150,000 for the offences. However, the Dutch Gambling Authority later doubled the amount Mr Green must pay due to the seriousness of the charges, the maximum amounts they allowed customers to place, and the bonuses and promotions the operator offered.
The regulator then added an additional 25% due to the lack of transparency about what terms and conditions apply to the games offered to consumers.
In considering the case, the judges in the Court of the Hague agreed with the Dutch Gambling Authority that Mr Green had significant grounds to fine the operator, also ruling that the fines were fair and proportionate. They also dismissed the claim that reputational harm had been done to the William Hill owned brand.
The court wrote: “Plaintiff [Mr Green] has not substantiated the alleged [reputational] damage with concrete information,”
“In addition, the respondent [the KSA] has pointed out that in practice it appears that providers of games of chance do not appear to experience any demonstrable hindrance from the publication of a fine decision addressed to them.
“Respondent could therefore reasonably allow the importance of transparency and the provision of information to outweigh the interest of the claimant in the absence of reputational damage,” the court added.
The Netherlands Online Gambling Association, the trade body representing the interests of most online operators in the country, has not commented on the court’s ruling.
