SCCG · Licensing

Copyright Filings Targeting 1xBet and Sportradar Coverage Prompt Denials From Both Companies

operatefresheurope
Copyright Filings Targeting 1xBet and Sportradar Coverage Prompt Denials From Both Companies

TL;DR — DMCA notices under Alex Gramm targeted 84 URLs on 68 domains, with 10 serving 1xBet interests and some addressing Sportradar short-seller coverage. Both firms deny involvement. The episode coincides with a securities class action filed 18 May against Sportradar.

SCCG Take — The paper trail focuses attention on how data providers and operators manage reputational risk amid offshore licensing debates. Regulators and investors will watch whether compliance claims extend to online content controls.

A Google email notifying Active8Insights of an alleged copyright infringement has revealed a pattern of DMCA notices that targeted reporting on 1xBet and Sportradar. The short-selling research outlet traced the complaints through Google’s system and the Lumen Database. It documented at least 12 notices under the name Alex Gramm covering 84 URLs across roughly 68 domains.

10 of the notices served the interests of 1xBet, including its branding, marketing materials or journalism about the operator. One notice dated 27 April sought removal of 18 URLs across 14 domains. Targets included Gaming Intelligence, Estadão, The Hindu, Play the Game and BettingBladet. The material concerned coverage of short-seller reports issued 22 April by Callisto Research and Muddy Waters.

Those reports alleged roughly a third of Sportradar’s revenue connected to illicit platforms. Sportradar shares fell by roughly a fifth that day. The company rejected the claims in a 28 April filing. It stated that client contracts require necessary licences, including certain offshore licences from Anjouan or Curaçao where acceptable under local law.

Both companies deny any role. Strategic adviser for 1xBet Simon Westbury told iGaming Business: “Activ8Insights is clear about the limits of what it can establish and does not allege that 1xBet was responsible for the activity described. 1xBet can confirm that it had no involvement or knowledge of that notice. We have no further comment.” A Sportradar spokesperson said it “did not file or commission the notice in question and has never sought the removal of such press coverage from search results” and “has no relationship with, or knowledge of, anyone filing copyright takedown notices under the name Alex Gramm.”

Tracing the Filings Back

The earliest matching notice identified dates to 1 November 2013 and concerned football analysis on a blog. The 1xBet-related pattern emerges from October 2025 onwards. An October 2025 complaint identified the sender as “Alex Gramm on behalf of 1xBet.” Active8Insights states it has no evidence that 1xBet or Sportradar filed, commissioned or knew about the notices. It does not allege such involvement. The records show only what was submitted and what material was targeted.

From Short Report to Courtroom

The takedowns sit inside a larger dispute over whether offshore licences carry legal effect in the jurisdictions where gambling occurs. The matter has moved into litigation. On 18 May, an investor filed Smale vs Sportradar Group AG et al in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. The proposed class action alleges Securities Exchange Act violations during the period from 7 November 2024 to 21 April 2026. Those remain allegations, not court findings. The Active8Insights work likewise supplies a paper trail but does not prove who commissioned the campaign.

Reporting: iGaming Business (iGB)

Generated by SCCG’s automated editorial system from published source reporting. SCCG Management holds editorial responsibility.

Steve’s read · SCCG Intelligence

Mystery copyright filings scrubbing negative press raise harder questions about reputational control than either denial can answer.

We track how operators and data vendors handle perception when litigation and short-seller fire converge. Someone filed 84 takedown requests under a phantom name—targeting coverage both companies now disavow. That gap between legal paper and corporate fingerprints is exactly where regulatory scrutiny lands, and where partners need clear due diligence.

SCCG angle: SCCG helps partners pressure-test vendor compliance and build crisis playbooks before negative coverage or litigation hits. We broker introductions to legal, PR, and regulatory advisors across every market where perception moves faster than denial statements, and we map who actually controls the narrative when things get messy.

SCCG Media · Daily briefing

Gaming, betting and prediction markets — the desk’s read, every weekday.

Subscribe →

Related

SponsoredBeyond Bancard — SCCG partnerVirginia Senators Draw Criticism for $100,000 Donations Tied to Failed iGaming BillWipfli Provides Accounting and Technology Services to 115 Tribal Casinos Amid Revenue Growth and New Competitive Threats
Curated by SCCG · Powered by SCCG Technology