Justin Franssen, a partner at Franssen Tolboom Attorneys at Law, criticized the Dutch gambling regulator for its inaction against Meta and other platforms displaying illegal gambling advertisements during a panel discussion at the SBC Summit on Wednesday.
Franssen expressed his disbelief at the regulator's complaints about lacking enforcement capabilities, given that it is funded by the operators. “To me, it’s absolutely incomprehensible that we have a regulator that is paid a serious amount of money by the operators and continues to complain that it doesn't have enough enforcement capabilities,” he stated.
He highlighted a specific provision in Dutch gambling law that originally prohibited advertising illegal gambling, but was broadened to include facilitation of such activities. Franssen argued, “To me, what Meta and others are doing is pure facilitation. Why are they not stepping up?”
Notably, the industry has begun to take matters into its own hands. The Dutch online gambling trade association, VNLOK, has filed a lawsuit against Meta, while Nederlandse Loterij has initiated civil action against illegal gambling sites Lalabet, with a ruling in June, and Qbet.
Franssen condemned a motion discussed in the Dutch parliament that suggested the KSA should act against Meta if it fails to comply with ad removal requests. “Well, it already can. It just isn’t doing so,” he remarked.
VNLOK chairman Björn Fuchs voiced similar concerns about the regulator's approach. He remarked on the regulator's preference to collaborate with Meta for long-term effectiveness, stating, “It was really astonishing to read the gambling authority state in a national newspaper that it would rather talk and cooperate with Meta because that would be more effective in the long term. We’ve seen the last five years; it doesn’t add up.”
Following unsuccessful attempts to engage with Meta, VNLOK took legal action, seeking a Dutch court’s intervention to mandate Meta's compliance with the EU Digital Services Act (DSA). Fuchs declared confidence in their proceedings and noted a shift in public perception against Meta, saying, “Who would have thought, five or ten years ago, that Meta would be charged in the US with being addictive at its core?”
He drew comparisons to civil court rulings in France and Germany that have held Meta accountable for illegal gambling ads and anticipated that Meta may try to relocate the case to Dublin, where it manages its EU operations. Fuchs pointed out that the gap between legislation and reality is widening due to advancements like AI-generated advertising and bot accounts. “Politics and legislation always lag behind reality, typically by about three years,” he said.
A recent study from the Netherlands showcased the rapid integration of AI; when tested, ten leading AI assistants, including Meta AI, all referenced at least one unlicensed gambling operator, with some implying the legality of such sites.
Despite the challenges, Fuchs remains optimistic about the future, suggesting that the enforcement landscape is evolving: “And with the DSA in place, I believe the European courts are also moving in that direction.”
In tandem with their legal filings, VNLOK lodged a formal complaint with the European Commission in June and is currently engaging with various European agencies. Fuchs described the situation of offshore operators as akin to being on “a small island,” employing cloaking techniques and fleeting ads to evade scrutiny, similar to the practices of a criminal organization. He emphasized that coordination among gambling authorities across nations is crucial for addressing shared challenges.
He asserted that cooperation among trade bodies from Denmark, Sweden, Germany, the UK, France, and Spain is ongoing, but warned that regulators are lagging behind. “At gambling-authority level, it should be much higher. Meta is a European problem,” Fuchs stated confidently, adding that he believes a significant increase in coherence is forthcoming at the European level, particularly regarding gambling enforcement.
The summons against Meta was officially served at the Amsterdam District Court, although a hearing date remains undetermined, and preliminary jurisdictional disputes could further delay proceedings.
