Unibet’s massive €4 million fine wasn’t for cheating. It was for letting players lose too much. This penalty peels back the marketing language to reveal what “duty of care” actually means, and why a heavily fined, regulated operator can be a safer bet than an offshore casino that answers to no one.
Unibet received a €4 million penalty. The reason was not rigged games or refused payouts. The penalty was for a failure to stop players from losing excessive amounts of money.
This fact requires a moment of consideration.
The Dutch gambling regulator, the KSA, examined the records of 10 high-spending players on Unibet's platform. Each file revealed a consistent pattern: individuals depositing thousands of euros daily, clear warning signs being ignored, and Unibet taking minimal, ineffective actions. The interventions included dismissible pop-ups and income checks requested weeks after significant losses had already occurred.
This is a clear example of a “duty of care” being disregarded. It reveals more about the mechanics of regulated gambling than any promotional material ever could. The KSA's investigation covered Unibet's player files from July 2022 to July 2024, focusing on the 10 accounts with the most substantial losses.
Players gambled late into the night, initiating session after session. Loss limits were breached repeatedly. These are classic indicators of problematic behavior that, under Dutch law, demand immediate intervention. Unibet's response consisted of pop-ups that players could close in seconds. Income verification requests were sent long after the financial damage was done. In certain instances, the company classified funds from business accounts as personal “income” to justify higher deposit allowances-a practice explicitly forbidden by Dutch regulators.
KSA Chairman Michel Groothuizen stated the authority's position clearly: “When there are signs of excessive gambling behavior and someone is wagering enormous sums in a short period, an operator must promptly investigate the origin of the money.” Promptly. Not eventually.
A Pattern of Penalties: Mapping Unibet's Global Regulatory Issues
This Dutch fine is not an isolated event. It is one piece of a larger pattern that has emerged throughout the year. The total of regulatory penalties in 2025 has surpassed €15 million across several jurisdictions.
- October 2025 (UK): The UK Gambling Commission fined Unibet's parent company £10 million for nearly identical failures. One player lost £5,000 within 24 hours of opening an account and went on to lose £16,000 over three months. Another player exceeded a £2,500 loss limit in just 16 minutes. The system did not flag this activity.
- September 2025 (Netherlands): A €450,000 fine was issued for offering bets on unauthorized football markets, including under-21 matches and events like corner kicks. These markets are banned due to their vulnerability to match-fixing.
- December 2024 (Netherlands): A €400,000 penalty was given for allowing self-excluded players access to the platform.
- May 2025 (Australia): An AU$1 million fine was imposed for breaches related to self-exclusion.
This is the company's second UK fine in two years, following a £2.9 million penalty in 2023 for similar anti-money laundering and social responsibility failures. At what point does a pattern of violations cease to be a series of mistakes and suggest a core business practice?
The Dutch Model: What “Duty of Care” Means in Practice
For players in markets without strict regulation, the concept of a casino actively preventing gambling may seem unusual. In jurisdictions like the Netherlands, it is a legal mandate. Licensed operators have obligations that extend beyond fair play. They are required to protect players.
Dutch regulations became substantially more stringent in October 2024. The framework establishes default monthly deposit limits of €350 for adults and €150 for players under 24. To exceed these limits, the casino must initiate personal contact. This means a direct conversation with prevention-trained staff, not an automated email.
A hard ceiling exists as well. A net deposit of more than €700 in a calendar month (€300 for young adults) blocks further deposits until the player can prove they can afford the losses. Pop-ups appear every 30 minutes to remind users of their session duration, and hitting a time limit results in an automatic logout. These are legal requirements.
The Netherlands also manages CRUKS, a central exclusion register. A player who self-excludes from one licensed casino is automatically barred from all of them. The system functions because regulators enforce it.
The Regulatory Paradox: Why a Fined Casino Can Be a Safer Bet
Why should a penalty levied against a major operator in Europe matter to you? It is critical information if you are attempting to identify which online casinos are genuinely safe.
The Unibet case highlights a counterintuitive point: regulated casinos are punished for being too permissive with deposits. They are legally obligated to slow players down, verify income, and intervene when behavior appears problematic. Offshore casinos operating without serious regulatory oversight have no such requirements. They lack mandatory deposit limits, income verification protocols, and interconnected self-exclusion registers. No regulator examines their player files or issues eight-figure fines for protection failures.
Consider the practical implications. Unibet was fined €4 million for interventions deemed “too weak.” At an unregulated offshore casino, those same weak interventions would be considered above average. Most offshore platforms provide no intervention.
The casino that just paid millions for inadequate player protection is, by a reasonable measure, still safer than platforms that operate with no accountability. This does not excuse Unibet's failures. The actions were wrong, and the penalty is deserved. The situation does, however, illustrate the importance of regulatory jurisdiction when selecting a place to play.
Verifying Legitimacy: A Player's Guide to Casino Due Diligence
Claims of licensing are simple to falsify. A “Licensed in Curaçao” badge appears on many sites, but that jurisdiction's regulatory framework has a reputation for being lenient. A license from the Malta Gaming Authority (MGA), the UK Gambling Commission (UKGC), or a regulator like the Dutch KSA carries authority because these bodies investigate and fine operators for misconduct.
Go to the Source: Check the Regulator's Database
Do not trust the license logo in a casino's website footer. Visit the regulator's official website and use their license database to search for the operator. If the casino is not listed, its license is either fraudulent or from a jurisdiction that lacks credibility.
Look for Enforcement Histories
Regulators like the UKGC and KSA publish their enforcement actions, including fines and warnings. A casino that has been fined and continues to operate under its license has been held accountable. An operator with no regulatory history may simply be avoiding detection.
Test the Self-Exclusion Tools
Evaluate the casino's responsible gambling tools. Can you set deposit and time limits? Does the platform connect to a national exclusion register? If these features are absent or poorly implemented, it indicates the operator's priorities.
Conclusion: The High Price of Accountability
The story of Unibet's fines contains a difficult truth: the penalties work.
The system is not perfect. Unibet's repeated errors across different jurisdictions suggest either deep systemic issues or a business calculation that fines are a cost of operation. But the regulatory pressure is tangible. Companies alter their behavior when millions of euros are on the line. Player files get reviewed. Systems are upgraded. Staff receive training.
Compare this to the offshore market, where operators can ignore complaints, refuse withdrawals based on arbitrary technicalities, and face no repercussions because no regulator holds jurisdiction over them.
The Dutch system has flaws, as does the UK's and every other regulatory framework. Players still suffer unaffordable losses. Addiction remains a problem. But the existence of duty of care requirements-and the will of regulators to enforce them with significant penalties-creates a level of accountability absent in unregulated markets.
Unibet's €4 million fine is a story of failure. It is also proof that someone is watching. For offshore casinos that answer to no one, nobody is watching at all.
This analysis, first published on CazPoint.com, was conducted and prepared by Vlad Hvalov, an expert in iGaming industry analysis and the chief editor of Respinix.com. His work is focused on providing players with objective, in-depth analytics to foster a better understanding of the online gambling industry.
