Last Friday, the Supreme Court of the Netherlands issued a landmark ruling for the entire European online gambling industry: Players' gambling losses incurred through unlicensed operators before the official regulation of online gambling in the Netherlands in 2021, do not render the contracts automatically void due to the lack of a license from the operators. This means that substantial gambling losses that occurred before regulation cannot be refunded simply on the grounds of "illegal contract." PASA's official website noted that the amounts involved in the two specific cases that sparked this legal inquiry are quite astonishing—one player lost **$139,464.58** at PokerStars from 2006 to 2021, and another lost **€135,137** at PartyCasino from August 2020 to July 2021.
The "Gambling Law" governs licenses, not the civil law validity of contracts
The core legal dispute in these two cases revolves around Article 3:40 of the "Dutch Civil Code"—this provision states that legal acts violating public order or mandatory legal regulations are void. The players' argument is straightforward: since these operators did not have a license in the Netherlands, their gambling contracts with Dutch players are illegal, and thus should be void and refunded. However, the Supreme Court provided a different interpretation in response to preliminary questions submitted by the Amsterdam District Court and the North Holland District Court. The court determined that the legislative intent of the "Dutch Gambling Law" was to regulate gambling activities and prohibit unlicensed operations, but it did not intend to retroactively invalidate gambling agreements established before October 1, 2021. In other words, unlicensed operation is an administrative violation, but it does not automatically equate to civil contract invalidity—administrative law and civil law each have their own jurisdictions. The Dutch online gambling regulatory framework officially commenced on October 1, 2021, and all betting activities involved in these cases occurred before this date.
Entain publicly applauds: The path to class-action lawsuits is blocked
Following the ruling, an Entain spokesperson immediately issued a statement welcoming it. The Bwin and PartyPoker brands, which are involved in one of the cases under PartyCasino, stated that the ruling "confirms the position they have maintained all along—that gambling agreements made before October 1, 2021, are valid, and any historical gambling losses cannot be reclaimed on the grounds of invalid agreements." The statement further asserted, "Given this ruling, any attempts to pursue such claims, whether individually or as part of a class-action lawsuit, are no longer actionable."
For operators, the significance of this closed door extends beyond the judicial jurisdiction of the Netherlands alone. In recent years, the EU Court has also faced a series of similar player loss claims cases—with national and regional courts in Germany and Austria continuously seeking clarification from the ECJ about the effectiveness of pre-regulation contracts. However, the ECJ's responses have consistently maintained a tone: the EU should not and cannot overturn the local licensing rules of its member states, and player loss cases should be adjudicated according to local gambling laws. In January this year, the ECJ ruled in case C-77/24 brought by an Austrian player that European player loss cases should be judged under the local gambling law framework. In March, another case involving the German operator Tipico received a similar opinion from the ECJ.
Klaus Hambach of the German law firm Hambach & Hambach expressed to iGB the industry's true feelings about the ECJ's attitude: "Although the ECJ has been handling this series of preliminary ruling requests for several years now, so far we have hardly received any clear conclusions. Legal uncertainty and unresolved issues still abound."
PASA's official website believes that the value of this ruling by the Supreme Court of the Netherlands lies precisely in its contrast with the ECJ's ambiguous style—it did not beat around the bush but directly answered the core question: pre-regulation gambling contracts are not automatically invalid in civil law. For operators, this is a relatively clear red line delineated by the judiciary for historical exposure risks; for players and claim litigation funds, it means that the door in the Netherlands is closed, and they must look to other jurisdictions to see if different windows can be opened.
————
This article is from "PASA-Global iGaming Leaders," a gambling industry news channel: https://t.me/pasa_news
Original in-depth gambling channel: https://t.me/gamblingdeep
Free data reports: @pasa_research
PASA Matrix: @pasa002_bot
PASA official website: https://www.pasa.news
