Last month saw significant activity in the gaming world when Entain, an industry titan in gaming and entertainment, brought a lawsuit against the previous owners of BetCity. This major online betting and sports entity had been acquired by Entain in the preceding year. The precipitating factor for the lawsuit was a series of undisclosed incidents involving the BetCity brand which culminated in financial penalties. As per Entain, the former proprietors of BetCity had not provided full disclosure with respect to two regulatory breaches. These included a violation of the advertising regulations in the Netherlands, and a supposed infraction of anti-money laundering laws.
These regulatory infractions led to financial penalties of €3 million ($3.2 million) and €400,000 ($433,000) for BetCity. The previous proprietors agreed to shoulder these fines. Nonetheless, Entain stipulates that the enforcement actions against the brand inflicted a more significant impact beyond simply the monies owed. The firm emphasizes the fact that these infringements tarnished the reputation of BetCity, asserting that the consequent negative effect is in surpassment to the financial penalties charged.
While the lawsuit was instituted late last month, there was a recent extension in the deadline for submitting the defense. As reported by Casino Nieuws, the lawsuit defendants and former owners of BetCity have been given more time to compile their defense along with any countervailing claims. Per the publication, the extended deadline is set for Tuesday, March 19, 2024.
The Legal Tussle Persists
The affirmed extension renders the former owners of the Dutch company an extended window to compose their defense. This derives from a mutual agreement between the conflicting parties. Despite this deadline extension for retraction and counterclaim, Entain has declined to accommodate the requests for information made by BetCity’s ex-owners. Particularly, the former owners demanded Entain to reveal the possible settlement expectation in this legal confrontation.
Earlier, Entain expressed an interest in “significant damages,” without specifying an exact monetary figure. Upon the latest inquiry by BetCity’s former owners, the firm rebuffed them, stating they were not privy to such information at this juncture. Entain elucidated that the valuation gap of the brand would be “determined based on expert testimony.”
The ex-owners, having previously led the esteemed online betting and gaming brand, have contested Entain’s assertion that the transgressions surpassed the monetary penalties.
