We have already explained why we do not regard NDAs and settlement agreements as “very different” when the settlement agreements “do contain Supplementary written evidence from GvC Holdings Plc (GAM0126) 426 Supplementary written evidence from GambleAware (GAM0128) confidentiality provisions” https://www.onlinecasinoluxembourg.com/testberichte/euro-palace/. Our view seems to be shared by William Hill, the relevant part of whose supplementary evidence begins: “Finally, with regard to NDAs or settlement agreements—we have used these in a very small number of cases to settle customer disputes in the interests of both parties without recourse to costly and time consuming legal action.”
The lengthy oral and written evidence we have received from the industry on this issue convinces us of two things. First, the industry is anxious to use non-disclosure clauses in the agreements they reach because the factual background of such agreements reflects little credit on them.
And secondly, it is only if the facts behind the settlement of disputes are routinely revealed (assuming the customer so wishes) that this will contribute to improving the conduct of the operators. This lack of transparency, so strongly defended by the industry, is one of the main factors which persuade us that only a wholly independent scheme will be adequate to settle disputes between operators and their customers.