Unibet have already confirmed in writing that they intend challenging the decision so there’s plenty of water still to flow under the bridge on this one.īenzi Loonstein, the lawyer representing the two gamblers conceded as much telling media that, “ understand that the battle is not yet finally over. In effect, the court assumes the allegations in the plaintiff’s claim to be true in the absence of any arguments to the contrary.Ī default judgement holds little weight as a precedent in subsequent cases.

The default judgment is then issued by the court in favour of the plaintiff without a full trial or hearing. It’s worth noting that this was a default judgement or “ verstekvonnis“. In the context of the Netherlands legal system, a default judgment occurs when the defendant fails to respond to a legal action brought against them within the specified time frame. Unibet was ordered to repay €93.000, the other company €124.000. The betting companies involved (Unibet and another that was not named) chose not to appear in court to defend themselves but were ordered in absentia to refund the money lost. The action was brought by a couple of disgruntled players who had racked up substantial gambling losses prior to that time. Regulated online gambling in the Netherlands only began in October 2021 (the long and painful road to regulation is summarised here). Earlier this month a Netherlands court ordered online betting companies to repay losses incurred by players during a period before online gambling was legalised.

December 2019 blackjack tournament