Mr Green loses appeal over illegally accepting Dutch players

Mr Green has lost its appeal to have a €312,500 (£267,284) Dutch Gambling Authority (KSA) fine quashed or reduced after a court in The Hague sided with the Netherlands regulator.

The William Hill-owned online casino was slapped with the fine in September 2018 for illegally targeting Dutch players during the period from 13 July 2017 to 7 November 2017.

The Malta-headquartered operator was sanctioned after allegedly failing to use IP blocking technology under the so-called ‘prioritisation’ criteria, under which international operators are obliged to block access to their websites by Dutch players.

Under this criteria, any gambling operator would be subject to a KSA assessment if the assessment established the presence of key elements.

These include any site featuring the Dutch language, a website with the .nl extension, the use of typical Dutch terms or symbols (including windmills, clogs and tulips) and if their website features the “usual” method of payment in Holland, iDEAL.

Dutch references and operators which do not employ geolocation technology to block access to Dutch players would also potentially be liable for review and censure under the KSA’s criteria.

Mr Green chose to appeal this fine on the grounds that this should not have been declared publicly, a challenge which was later dismissed by judges in December 2018 on the grounds that disclosure was necessary on transparency grounds.

However, Mr Green chose to appeal this decision, stating that the level of the fine itself and the prioritisation criteria were unreasonable, and that the firm had suffered a “disproportionate disadvantage” in the form of irreversible (reputational) damage.

In addition, Mr Green argued that the KSA had provided insufficient reasons for increasing the fine, suggesting that it only met the prioritisation criteria on a very basic level, whilst referencing the precedent in other similar cases where smaller fines were handed down.

Mr Green’s original fine was set at €150,000, however this was later doubled due to the seriousness of the violation, the number of games offered, the maximum bets and withdrawals, bonuses and promotions offered.

It was later increased by 25% by the KSA due to special circumstances, namely “insufficient transparency” on the Mr Green website about which general terms and conditions apply to the games offered.

In considering the case, judges in the Court of the Hague ruled that the KSA had sufficient grounds to pursue assessment of Mr Green under the prioritisation criteria, dismissing claims that the fine was disproportionate and unreasonable given the nature of the violations.

Justices also rejected claims of any reputational damage arising from the publication of the fine.

“Plaintiff [Mr Green] has not substantiated the alleged [reputational] damage with concrete information,” the court wrote in its decision.

“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.