Unibet (operating in the Netherlands via Optdeck Service Limited) is once again under the spotlight. The Kansspelautoriteit has imposed a last under dwangsom (order with a penalty) on Unibet for repeatedly offering forbidden sports bets. GamblingHolland.nl breaks down what went wrong, what the ruling says, and what this means for operators and players.

What happened?

Between October 2022 and May 2025, Unibet allegedly offered sports betting options that are not allowed under Dutch law. Specifically:

• Bets on corner kicks, yellow cards, etc
• Bets on matches involving players under the age of 21.
• KSA had raised the issue before, but found that the prohibited wagering options remained in Unibet’s offering over a prolonged period.

The Sanction for Unibet

KSA has imposed a last onder dwangsom on Unibet (Optdeck) of €75,000 per week for each week that new violations occur.This runs up to a maximum of €450,000.
Notably, this is not (only) a retrospective fine — the idea is to force immediate compliance. If Unibet does not rein in the forbidden bets, weekly penalties kick in.

Issues / “Boetengat” (Fine Gap) Discussion

GamblingHolland.nl sees some interesting angles here — possibly what you meant with "boetengat":

There's a gap between when violations occurred and when significant enforcement action was taken. Unibet offered forbidden bets over multiple years. KSA had multiple warnings, but only now imposes a strong sanction. That delay may allow ongoing violations in the interim.
Because the penalty only applies going forward (for new violations) and is structured as a dwangsom, the historic damage (i.e. bets already made) may not be recovered, or may not face full punishment.

That may be perceived as a leniency (“gap”) in enforcement. Moreover, the cap of €450,000 may or may not be sufficient to fully deter big operators who have scale: for a large sportsbook, the revenue from forbidden bets might in some cases exceed what the penalty costs.

What it means for operators & bettors

Operators should double-check their offering: which betting markets are explicitly forbidden, especially those involving youth matches or match moments that are easily manipulated. They should audit their systems to remove, block, or strictly manage such markets. Compliance documentation will be important, especially with the upcoming stricter licence rules.
For players: less exposure to risky or unethical bet types should increase fairness; but players should also be aware what is allowed or not in a legal, regulated venue.

This enforcement action sends a strong message: repeated warnings are not enough. The KSA is moving toward more concrete penalties that enforce compliance rather than just post-hoc punishment.