The Dutch Supreme Court has determined that people who lost money to unlicensed online gambling operators before the Netherlands introduced its regulated online market in October 2021 cannot automatically recover those losses through the courts.
The decision provides guidance for judges handling a growing number of lawsuits involving gambling agreements made before the country’s licensing framework took effect. Players had argued that contracts with operators lacking Dutch licences should be treated as legally invalid, requiring gambling companies to repay lost funds. The Supreme Court concluded that Dutch civil law does not automatically produce that outcome.
According to lawyer Benzi Loonstein, the ruling could affect hundreds of thousands of Dutch players and claims involving hundreds of millions of euros.
Court Explains Why Contracts Remain Valid
The judgment followed requests from district courts in Amsterdam and Noord-Holland seeking clarification on Article 3:40 of the Dutch Civil Code, which allows legal acts to be declared invalid if they conflict with mandatory legislation or public order.
The Supreme Court found that the Dutch Games of Chance Act prohibits unlicensed gambling but does not state that agreements with players automatically lose their legal validity. Judges said the legislation was designed to regulate the market through licensing and enforcement rather than determine the civil-law status of gambling contracts.
The court also rejected claims that agreements with unlicensed operators automatically conflict with public order or morality, noting Dutch law directs gambling toward licensed providers rather than prohibiting gambling itself. Judges further observed that the Gambling Act contains rules for licensed gambling contracts but no equivalent provision declaring agreements with unlicensed operators void.
Cases Behind the Decision
The guidance arose from disputes involving Malta-based operators without Dutch licences.
One claimant sought to recover $139,464.58 lost on PokerStars between 2006 and 2021. Another requested repayment of €135,137 lost on PartyCasino between August 2020 and July 2021.
The Supreme Court also rejected PokerStars’ argument that its platform primarily facilitates peer-to-peer play, finding that distinction did not affect the legal issue.
Alternative Claims Remain Possible
Although the judgment rejects automatic repayment claims, it leaves other legal avenues available.
The ruling states that it “does not preclude such agreements from being annulled under certain circumstances, for example, on the grounds of mistake, or from giving rise to a claim for damages based on an unlawful act.”
Loonstein described the outcome as “disappointing for many players,” while adding that it provides “clarity to a legal debate that has been ongoing for years.”
He also said: “In those countries, gambling agreements with illegal operators are not regarded as valid, whereas the Dutch Supreme Court considers the same types of agreements to be valid. That is surprising.”
The ruling comes as courts across Europe continue examining comparable disputes, with recent European Court of Justice decisions generally emphasising that such claims should be assessed under national licensing laws.
Source:
“Dutch Court Limits Refund Claims for Gambling Losses”, news.worldcasinodirectory.com. Jul 7, 2026
The post Dutch Court Clarifies Rules on Gambling Loss Recovery first appeared on RealMoneyAction.com.