Michel Groothuizen, Chairman of Kansspelautoriteit (KSA), believes that reforms to Dutch gambling laws must provide a better financial guardianship of the consumer and vulnerable players.
Throughout 2026, the Kamer will continue to review proposals that seek to reorganise the Dutch online gambling market, which is currently regulated under the framework of the 2021 Remote Gambling Act (KOA).
Groothuizen is aware of the challenge of balancing gambling laws and protections with consumer rights.
His latest intervention underlines a central question for Dutch lawmakers: how far should the state go in protecting players from financial harm without removing individual choice?
The question has become more urgent as Claudia van Bruggen, State Secretary for Legal Protection, presses ahead with a major package of gambling reforms. The legislative overhaul, first enacted in 2026, seeks to introduce what the government has described as stronger guaranteed protections for consumers, particularly young adults and financially vulnerable groups.
The proposed KOA reforms include a near-total ban on online gambling advertising, a ban on welcome bonuses, centralised deposit limits across licensed websites, stricter duty-of-care requirements, a higher minimum age of 21 for high-risk online games and broader enforcement powers for the KSA to block illegal operators.
A question of balance
Groothuizen said he is “very wary” of restricting citizens’ freedom of choice purely on the basis of income. He compared gambling losses to speculative investments, arguing that people may make unwise financial decisions, but that this does not automatically justify state intervention.
The KSA Chairman is aware of the challenge of finding a balance on regulation: “It is difficult – and in my view also undesirable – to conduct income policy through gambling regulation. How much should people be allowed to gamble away?”
For Groothuizen, the key issue is not whether protection is needed, but how it should be delivered. In his letter titled Gambling: vulnerable and precious, he warns that gambling has become normalised in Dutch society, particularly among young people, while the rise of smartphone gambling has removed many of the barriers that once limited participation.
“Gambling has become completely normalised, especially among young people,” Groothuizen wrote, adding that addiction is “always lurking” and that players can lose more than they intended.
His concern is sharpened by the financial nature of gambling harm. Unlike alcohol or other risky behaviours, gambling can create serious financial damage in a short period. Groothuizen noted that the average loss on the legal Dutch market is around €125 per month, but warned that vulnerable players can quickly fall into deeper difficulty.
At the same time, he cautioned against turning gambling regulation into direct income policy. “How much should people be allowed to gamble away? Should the government be allowed to decide that for them at all?” he asked.
“Should the government be allowed to decide that for them at all? I am very wary of infringing upon the freedom of choice of citizens and of making distinctions based on income alone.”
CRUKS is the Central Protection
This is where CRUKS, the national self-exclusion register, becomes central to his argument. Around 120,000 people are currently registered in CRUKS, which blocks access to licensed gambling operators. The current minimum exclusion period is six months, but Van Bruggen wants to extend it to 12 months.
Groothuizen has backed the proposal, stating: “That seems like a sensible intention to me. As far as I am concerned, it could be even longer.”
His strongest recommendation goes further. Groothuizen wants CRUKS to be automatically linked to the Central Curatorship and Administration Register (CCBR), which includes people under financial administration or guardianship. He said that around 250,000 people in the Netherlands are under protective administration, with a further 25,000 under curatorship.
These are precisely the groups, he argues, who need automatic protection from gambling products. “By linking the CCBR directly and integrally to CRUKS, we offer optimal protection to an extremely vulnerable group,” he said.
The proposal reflects the wider balancing act facing Dutch gambling reforms. Van Bruggen’s package aims to tighten protections across the regulated market, while the KSA continues to warn that excessive restrictions could push players towards illegal operators, where CRUKS and affordability checks do not apply.
Groothuizen’s message is therefore clear: Dutch regulation must become tougher, but also smarter. The future KOA framework must protect vulnerable consumers without treating all players as incapable of making their own choices.
As he concluded, society may not be able to close the door of the liquor store to an alcoholic, but it can “lock the door to the legal casino” for those most at risk.