The Netherlands’ Supreme Court has ruled that players who lost money with unlicensed online gambling operators before the country’s regulated market launched in 2021 are not automatically entitled to recover those losses. The decision provides guidance for courts handling a growing number of disputes involving gambling activity that took place before Dutch online licensing rules came into effect.
The judgment addresses a legal argument that has formed the basis of numerous claims against gambling companies in recent years. Many players had contended that agreements entered into with operators lacking Dutch licenses were legally invalid, which would require operators to return lost funds. The Supreme Court rejected that position, concluding that such contracts are not automatically void under Dutch civil law.
The ruling is expected to influence a large number of ongoing and future cases. According to lawyer Benzi Loonstein, the issue could involve hundreds of thousands of Dutch players and potentially hundreds of millions of euros in gambling losses.
Supreme Court Clarifies Status of Gambling Agreements
The case reached the Supreme Court after district courts in Amsterdam and Noord-Holland sought clarification on whether agreements with unlicensed online gambling operators violated Article 3:40 of the Dutch Civil Code. That provision can render legal acts invalid when they conflict with public order or mandatory statutory requirements.
The court determined that the Dutch Games of Chance Act, while prohibiting operators from offering gambling services without a license, does not automatically invalidate agreements made with players. Judges found that the legislation was designed to establish regulatory oversight and enforcement mechanisms rather than alter the civil-law validity of contracts formed in violation of licensing rules.
The decision also rejected arguments that gambling agreements with unlicensed operators should be considered contrary to public order or morality. According to the court, Dutch gambling policy does not prohibit gambling entirely. Instead, the legal framework directs gambling activity toward licensed providers and includes safeguards intended to protect consumers.
According to NL Times, judges further noted that the Gambling Act contains provisions governing licensed gambling contracts but does not include a corresponding rule declaring agreements with unlicensed operators invalid. The absence of such a civil-law remedy played a key role in the court’s reasoning.
Cases Involving PokerStars and PartyCasino
The Supreme Court’s guidance stemmed from two disputes involving Malta-based operators that did not possess Dutch licenses during the periods in question.
One claimant reported losses totaling $139,464.58 while playing on PokerStars between 2006 and 2021. The platform was operated by TSG Interactive Gaming Europe Ltd. A second player sought reimbursement of €135,137 lost while gambling with PartyCasino, operated by ElectraWorks Europe Ltd, between August 2020 and July 2021.
