The Supreme Court of the Netherlands has issued a significant ruling concerning player losses incurred with unlicensed operators before the country regulated online gambling in 2021. The court found that these cases are not automatically void, meaning players do not have an inherent right to reimbursement for losses from this period.
This decision was prompted by preliminary inquiries from the District Court of Amsterdam and the District Court of North Holland. Responses from industry insiders suggest that the ruling aligns with a long-held stance by the judiciary.
The specific cases involved two players who wagered through Malta-licensed operators prior to the introduction of the Dutch gambling framework. One individual reported losses amounting to $139,464.58 while playing on PokerStars—managed by TSG Interactive Gaming Europe Ltd in Malta—from 2006 to 2021. The second player lost €135,137 while gambling with PartyCasino—which is operated by ElectraWorks Europe Ltd, also based in Malta—between August 2020 and July 2021.
Both players sought to have their contracts declared void in order to recoup their losses for the respective periods. The courts wanted to ascertain whether Article 3:40 of the Dutch Civil Code, which renders contracts void if they contradict public order or mandatory statutes, applied in these instances.
The Supreme Court determined that the Dutch Games of Chance Act, which oversees gambling and bans unlicensed operations, does not invalidate such contracts under civil law. The court dismissed assertions that the 2021 regulatory changes were meant to negate the validity of contracts with unlicensed online operators.
A representative from Entain shared praise for the ruling. "Bwin, PartyCasino, and PartyPoker welcome the Supreme Court’s ruling. It confirms the position they have consistently maintained, which is that gambling agreements entered into before 1 October 2021 are valid, and that any historic gambling losses incurred cannot be recovered on the basis that those agreements were void," the spokesperson stated. They added, "In light of the court's decision, any attempt to pursue such claims, whether individually or collectively, is no longer tenable."
Around the same time, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has been addressing similar player loss cases, as courts in Germany and Austria sought clarity on the legality of player contracts established before official gambling regulations were enacted. Despite this, the ECJ's recent rulings have left many issues unresolved, advising regional courts to prioritize local licensing rules.
Overall, the European judges have asserted that the EU does not have the authority to override local licensing standards for gaming. In a January case (C-77/24) involving an Austrian player, the court ruled that cases for player losses in Europe should proceed according to local gaming laws. A subsequent case in March involving the German operator Tipico reiterated the importance of local licensing compliance, affirming that operators must observe domestic regulations provided they align with EU laws for free movement.
Stakeholders, however, have expressed frustration over the lack of clarity from the ECJ concerning player loss issues. "Although the ECJ has been dealing with a series of requests for preliminary rulings for several years, we have had little clarity so far," remarked Claus Hambach from the legal firm Hambach & Hambach. "There remains considerable legal uncertainty and unresolved questions."
