New Parliamentary Questions Raised Regarding Gambling Claims

Members of Parliament Derk Boswijk (CDA), Diederik van Dijk (SGP), and Michiel van Nispen (SP) have once again submitted parliamentary questions regarding gambling claims made by players against gambling companies that were active in the Netherlands before the Remote Gambling Act (Wet Koa) came into effect. Boswijk had previously promised on the television program Radar that he would bring the situation to the attention of State Secretary Teun Struycken again.

Previously, Boswijk and Van Nispen had also submitted parliamentary questions, with a similar intent, regarding the case between Unibet and players who did not receive their transaction history. State Secretary Teun Struycken responded to the previously asked parliamentary questions about the gambling claims by stating that he could not comment on the matter. He referred to the court, the Gaming Authority (Ksa), and the Personal Data Authority.

PokerStars, Unibet, bwin

In a new attempt, the Members of Parliament ask the State Secretary whether he wants to reflect on the fact that the now legal online casino Unibet was already active in the Netherlands before legalization. They also ask whether Struycken considers it desirable that companies such as Unibet, PokerStars, and bwin receive a license in the Netherlands while they were previously active in the Netherlands without a license.

This question is particularly striking because Unibet is the only one of the three gambling companies mentioned that has received a license from the Gaming Authority. PokerStars and bwin had previously indicated that they also wanted a license from the Gaming Authority, but it never came to that. Both gambling companies withdrew their license application and never returned to the Dutch market.

Cooling-Down Period

The majority of the questions relate to the situation surrounding the transaction history of players at Unibet. Earlier this week, the TV program Radar devoted attention to the case, in which Derk Boswijk also spoke. He promised to urge the State Secretary again to take action.

Struycken responded to previous parliamentary questions that he found the offering of online games of chance before the introduction of the Remote Gambling Act undesirable. The State Secretary did not want to make any statements about the possible withdrawal of a license.

Struycken also referred at the time to the cooling-down period that was used during the licensing process. The Members of Parliament now ask whether Struycken believes that Unibet has really adhered to this cooling-down period of two years and nine months.

Finally, the Members of Parliament want to know whether the State Secretary has already discussed the issue surrounding Unibet in Malta. The State Secretary is also asked what actions he has already taken to address Malta on Bill 55, the gambling law that protects gambling companies against judgments from abroad.

2025Z10599

(Submitted May 27, 2025)

Questions from Members Boswijk (CDA), Diederik van Dijk (SGP), and Van Nispen (SP) to the State Secretary of Justice and Security regarding the reports “Gambling Victims Want Their Money Back from Online Casinos: Do They Stand a Chance, They Did Press the Button Themselves?” and “Gambling Companies Refuse to Share Data”

1. Are you familiar with the report “‘Gambling Victims’ Want Their Money Back from Online Casinos: Do They Stand a Chance, They Did Press the Button Themselves?” [1][2]
2. Can you reflect on the fact that gambling company Unibet was illegally very active on the Dutch online gambling market in the period prior to the legalization of the online gambling market in 2021, with thousands of gamblers losing money and Unibet not taking responsibility for this?
3. Do you consider it desirable that gambling companies such as Unibet, PokerStars, and Bwin, which have been offering illegal online games of chance in the Netherlands for years, can then simply obtain a license for the Dutch online gambling market? If so, can you explain that?
4. Do you believe that when a gambling company refuses to cooperate with lawsuits filed by aggrieved gamblers, such as refusing to compensate gamblers or provide transaction data, this should not have any consequences for the license? If so, can you explain that?
5. How do you assess the fact that Unibet no longer provides transaction data in order to frustrate the legal proceedings of gamblers?
6. Do you agree that deliberately sabotaging gamblers who go to court because of money lost at illegal gambling companies undermines the credibility and duty of care of the online gambling company to such an extent that the license must be revoked immediately? If not, why not?
7. Are you willing to discuss this specific case with the Gaming Authority (Ksa) to investigate what steps can be taken to prevent more gamblers from gaining insight into the transaction costs and payment overviews of their lost money?
8. Do you think that a gambling company such as Unibet creates a safe and controlled supply of online games of chance – an important objective of legalizing online games of chance – when data is systematically withheld to prevent gamblers from being able to reclaim their lost money from the period that the gambling company illegally offered online games of chance in the Netherlands?
9. Has Unibet adhered to the cooling-down period, which means that for two years and nine months prior to the date on which an application for a license was submitted, the company refrained from offering online games of chance aimed at the Netherlands?
10. In response to previous written questions from Member Boswijk (CDA), on January 15, 2025, about the case that Unibet does not provide access to transaction data, you answered that you have referred the Ksa and the Personal Data Authority to this case. Have any follow-up steps been taken by the Ksa or the Personal Data Authority (AP) since then? If not, why not?
11. Have you indeed brought this case to the attention of other European member states, in particular Malta, and if so, what concrete agreements have been made about this?
12. Are steps being taken from Europe to address Malta on the adopted Bill-55?

Lead photo via the House of Representatives.