The Supreme Court of the Netherlands has issued a significant ruling that impacts players seeking restitution for losses incurred with unlicensed operators before the regulation of iGaming in 2021. The court determined that such cases are not automatically void, meaning players do not have an inherent right to reimbursement for losses from this period.
The ruling, issued on Friday, was in response to preliminary questions from the District Court of Amsterdam and the District Court of North Holland. Many industry observers have praised this outcome as a reflection of the court's consistent stance.
In the cases at hand, two individuals had gambled with Malta-licensed operators prior to the establishment of the Dutch online gambling framework. One player reported losses of $139,464.58 while playing on PokerStars, operated by TSG Interactive Gaming Europe Ltd, between 2006 and 2021. The second individual suffered a loss of €135,137 while gambling at PartyCasino, which is operated by ElectraWorks Europe Ltd, during the period from August 2020 to July 2021.
Both players sought judicial confirmation that their contracts with the gambling operators were void in order to recover their losses.
The Supreme Court ruled that the Dutch Games of Chance Act, which regulates gambling and prohibits unlicensed offerings, does not invalidate such contracts under civil law. The court further dismissed claims that the 2021 regulations aimed to render contracts with unlicensed operators invalid.
An Entain spokesperson acknowledged the Supreme Court's decision, stating, "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. In light of the court's decision, any attempt to pursue such claims, whether individually or collectively, is no longer tenable."
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has also seen a rise in similar cases concerning player losses, as regional courts in Germany and Austria have sought clarification on the validity of player contracts predating formal regulations. Despite several rulings, the ECJ's responses have left stakeholders with many unanswered questions.
The overarching message from the European judiciary has been that local licensing rules must prevail and cannot be overridden by the EU. In a January decision concerning a player in Austria, where a gambling monopoly is enforced, the court ruled that cases involving player losses should adhere to local gambling laws. A March ruling involving the German operator Tipico reiterated the importance of compliance with local regulations, provided they conform to EU regulations for free movement.
Stakeholders have expressed frustration over the ongoing uncertainty in relation to player losses. Claus Hambach of the law firm Hambach & Hambach noted, "Although the ECJ has been dealing with a series of requests for preliminary rulings for several years, we have had little clarity so far. There remains considerable legal uncertainty and unresolved questions."
