Recently, two interesting judgments have been issued in the field of gambling. The District Court of The Hague (March 12, 2025) and the District Court of North Holland (February 26, 2025) ruled in cases brought by Dutch players against foreign illegal gambling providers. The courts ruled that the players are entitled to reimbursement of the entire net loss of €271,301.04 and €119,634.36 because the gambling providers do not have a Dutch license.
The Facts of the Cases
At their core, these cases revolve around the same issue: players who gambled on the websites of online casinos between 2017 and 2021. Until 2021, it was not possible for online providers to apply for a license, and all online games were considered illegal. Only after the introduction of the Remote Gambling Act in that year did this become possible. At the time of writing, neither party has a license.
District Court of The Hague – March 5, 2025
A Dutch player had participated in online gambling via the website of Trannel International Limited, a gambling provider based in Malta, between December 2018 and September 2020. The player claimed an amount of €271,301.04 in this case, which according to the player represented the net loss.
District Court of North Holland – February 26, 2025
A Dutch player had participated in online gambling via the website of BML Group Limited, a gambling provider also based in Malta, between March 2017 and March 2021. The player had deposited a total of €267,275.00 into the player account. Of this, €147,640.64 was paid out to the player, resulting in a net loss of €119,634.36.
Nullity of the Gambling Agreement
The central question was: is a gambling agreement with a gambling provider without a Dutch license legally valid?
Article 1(1)(a) of the Dutch Gambling Act (in Dutch: Wet op de kansspelen, “Wok”) prohibits offering gambling without a license. The gambling providers had no license at least until 2021 and thereby acted in violation of the Gambling Act. Subsequently, it had to be examined whether this leads to nullity of the agreement pursuant to Article 3:40(2) of the Dutch Civil Code. This provision stipulates that an agreement in violation of a mandatory statutory provision in principle leads to nullity, unless the statutory provision exclusively aims to protect one party.
In both cases, the court considered:
- The Gambling Act is a mandatory statutory provision that does not exclusively aim to protect one party
- The licensing system is intended to channel and regulate gambling
- It is a criminal offense to offer gambling without a license
- The legislator has deemed unlicensed gambling so undesirable that gambling agreements without a license must be considered null and void
Both gambling providers also appealed to “loss of purpose” – the idea that the statutory provision would have lost its purpose due to social developments. The court resolutely dismissed this argument, referring, among other things, to the enforcement policy of the Dutch Gaming Authority and case law which clearly shows that offering unlicensed gambling is still considered socially undesirable.
The conclusion is clear: the gambling agreement is null and void, which means that the performances of the parties are undue and must be reversed.
A Remarkable Legal Situation
What makes these cases particularly interesting is that Article 1(1)(c) of the Dutch Gambling Act stipulates that it is prohibited to “make use of an opportunity as referred to under a, knowing that no license has been granted for providing it pursuant to this Act.”
In these cases, however, the court awards the full net loss to the player, without addressing the player’s possible own violation of the Gambling Act. A violation that is even criminalized. The judgments raise questions about the balance between the protection of players and their own responsibility under the law. At the same time, this also raises questions regarding the profits of players who have knowingly participated in illegal online gambling; they may have been unjustly enriched by the winnings.
The courts seem to want to send a clear signal to foreign gambling providers operating on the Dutch market without a license, but at the same time leave open what this means for the legal position of players who knowingly participate in such gambling.
Consequences of the Reversal
In case of nullity of an agreement, the performances made by both parties must be reversed. In this case, the gambling provider offers the opportunity to participate in an online casino. The player’s performance is the payment of sums of money to participate.
The courts rule that the player can reclaim their “net loss.” This is the difference between the stake and received payouts. A more extensive repayment would lead to unjust enrichment of the player.
The opportunity to participate in gambling offered by the gambling provider cannot by its nature be reversed and may not be financially valued due to its illegal character.
The gambling provider cannot successfully defend against the (claim for) repayment of the net loss, as this would mean that they would profit from their own illegal activity.
Implications of this Judgment – Awaiting the Supreme Court
Two district courts reach a clear conclusion: gambling agreements with providers without a Dutch license are null and void. Players can therefore reclaim their net loss.
Yet the legal story is not over. The Amsterdam District Court referred important questions about this issue to the Supreme Court on June 12, 2024. The core of these questions: does the Dutch Gambling Act (Wok) intend to invalidate agreements with illegal providers, and can players actually reclaim their losses?
It is notable that these district courts decided not to wait for the answers from the Supreme Court, partly because appeal is still possible. This is in contrast to other courts that are staying similar cases.
The impact of this legal issue is significant. In 2018, approximately 1.8 million Dutch people participated in online gambling, accounting for nearly 600 million euros in expenditure. The divergent rulings by courts create legal uncertainty that only the Supreme Court can eliminate.
While awaiting this definitive judgment, these rulings already provide an interesting preview of how the legal balance may ultimately fall.
Need Legal Advice?
Are you involved in a similar situation? The complexity of this area of law and recent developments make expert legal advice essential.
Contact our Gaming & Gambling section. We are happy to think along with you.
