Gokverliesterug’s Pursuit for Damages: Court Dismisses Player Claims Against Unibet
On Monday, the Amsterdam District Court ruled against a case brought forth by Gokverliesterug, an organization representing players who sought damages from Kindred Group’s Unibet, claiming improper handling of their personal data.
The organization, which focuses on managing claims against unlicensed online gambling entities, asserted that these players were denied access to their personal data upon request. This claim involved players who engaged with various Dutch-facing platforms associated with the Unibet brand from 2010 to 2024.
It’s important to note that the Netherlands only opened its online gambling market legally on October 1, 2021. Prior to this, Unibet operated in the region without regulation but has since acquired a license to operate legally.
Players contacted Unibet seeking clarity on what personal data had been collected during their gambling activities. In late 2023 and early 2024, two players received summaries detailing their transaction and gaming histories. Nevertheless, Unibet subsequently failed to provide the additional data requested, suggesting alternative submission methods or requiring more time for processing. Moreover, Unibet contested its obligation to release the data, citing Maltese law, where its parent company, Kindred, is registered.
In response, Gokverliesterug initiated legal proceedings to compel Unibet to disclose the requested data and sought financial compensation for the players as well as coverage of legal expenses.
Court Upholds Unibet’s Defense Against Data Claim
The court, however, did not side with Gokverliesterug. It acknowledged Unibet’s argument that it had complied with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which safeguards player data from unauthorized release. Unibet contended that Gokverliesterug’s request did not align with Article 79, paragraph 2 of the GDPR, which stipulates that only non-profit entities can represent players if they possess that individual’s personal data and maintain their confidentiality.
Unibet accused Gokverliesterug of pursuing the case for profit, citing that the organization retains 36% of any recovered funds from gambling operators. They further asserted that Gokverliesterug doesn’t meet the non-profit criteria mandated by GDPR.
In defense, Gokverliesterug argued that the GDPR doesn’t exclusively bind legal representation to non-profit entities and rejected claims of a full profit motive, indicating that it secured external funding to assist its operations. They asserted that the 36% contingency fee fairly compensated the risks undertaken by their litigation funder.
Nonetheless, the court found that Gokverliesterug failed to substantiate its claim of being non-profit-oriented in this context. The judges also noted there was insufficient evidence demonstrating that the organization operated solely as a "managing partner" for the players and not with profit as a central objective.
As a result, Gokverliesterug’s claims were deemed inadmissible, and the organization was ordered to pay a combined total of €2,553 in court costs, including payments to Kindred and its co-defendant, Risepoint.