Ksa upholds bet365 direction over limits reaching 103% of calculated monthly income

The Dutch gambling regulator has rejected an objection by Hillside New Media Malta Plc, the company operating bet365 in the Netherlands, against a binding direction issued on 13 November 2025. The decision keeps the regulator's instruction in place after a review of how the operator assessed whether selected players could afford their gambling.

Calling the outcome a fine would change the nature of the case. A binding direction tells a licensee to bring its conduct or controls into line with regulatory requirements. The public record does not attach a financial penalty to this decision, suspend the licence or make a criminal finding.

The Ksa examined 12 player accounts and concluded that Hillside did not respond adequately to signals that customers might no longer be able to bear the financial consequences of their play. It also said the operator did not take sufficient intervention measures in the reviewed cases.

This is a targeted regulatory sample, not a statement about every bet365 account in the country. Even so, the figures are difficult to dismiss: the regulator recorded deposit limits that ranged from 31.82% to 81.38% of operator-calculated net monthly income, alongside examples at 99.31% and 103.12%.

The dispute turned partly on the evidence used to support affordability decisions. According to the objection ruling, Hillside relied in some cases on income declared by the customer and checked it against public information from Statistics Netherlands or a LinkedIn profile. The Ksa did not consider those steps sufficient proof that the customer could absorb gambling expenditure.

That distinction matters because income is not the same as disposable income. Rent, debt, dependants and other fixed costs can make identical salaries support very different levels of gambling. A public job description or national income range may test whether a declaration looks plausible, but it does not establish the money a particular player can safely lose.

One of the most striking figures in the record is a deposit limit equal to 103.12% of the net monthly income calculated by the operator. Another reached 99.31%. Those percentages describe limits, not confirmed monthly losses, and they come from the regulator's reviewed files rather than the operator's full customer base.

The careful conclusion is still serious. A limit set close to, or above, calculated monthly income leaves little visible room for ordinary living costs. The Ksa's position is that the operator needed stronger evidence and more effective action when the financial signals in those accounts appeared.

Hillside argued that the binding direction was no longer necessary because it had improved its processes following guidance issued in March 2025. The objection record also addresses proportionality and the way the regulator assessed the customer files.

The Ksa nevertheless found the original direction justified and rejected the objection. At the same time, the decision records that later information suggested the operator was moving in the right direction. That is relevant mitigation, but it does not reverse the regulator's findings about the earlier files.

The administrative objection stage is complete, but the case is not necessarily beyond challenge. The Ksa case page states that a court appeal may be filed. The public material reviewed for this draft does not say whether Hillside has started that step.

The next update should therefore be procedural and evidence-led: a filed appeal, a court judgment, further compliance action or a company statement. Until then, the accurate status is a binding direction upheld on objection, based on 12 reviewed accounts, with no financial penalty attached to the published decision.