Since 3 July 2026 it is no longer possible to reclaim online gambling losses from an unlicensed operator simply because it had no Dutch licence. On that date the Hoge Raad (Supreme Court) held, answering prejudicial questions, that a gambling agreement with an operator without a Dutch licence is neither void nor voidable under article 3:40 of the Dutch Civil Code. Losses can therefore no longer be claimed back as an undue payment on that ground alone. Claims are still possible, but they must now be built on unlawful conduct by the operator, on mistake or deceit, or on breach of a duty of care, and each of those routes depends on the individual player facts.
What Dutch gambling law required, and when
The Wet op de kansspelen (Games of Chance Act, Wok) has always made it an offence to offer a game of chance in the Netherlands without a Dutch licence. Article 1 paragraph 1 under a of that Act contains the prohibition. Until 2021 there was no licence available for online games of chance at all, which meant that every operator serving Dutch players online was doing so unlawfully, however impeccable its Maltese, Curacao or Gibraltar licence may have been.
The Wet kansspelen op afstand (Remote Gambling Act, known as the Koa) changed the regime. It entered into force on 1 April 2021, and the first licences took effect on 1 October 2021, which is the date on which a legal Dutch online market came into existence. Operators that still serve Dutch players today without a Dutch licence remain in breach of the Wok, and the Kansspelautoriteit (Netherlands Gambling Authority) can impose fines and orders on them. A licence from another jurisdiction is not a substitute. This is a point worth stressing, because operators frequently argue the opposite: an MGA or Curacao licence permits an operator to do business in that jurisdiction, not to accept players in the Netherlands.
Two features of the pre-2021 period explain the wave of claims that followed. First, the Kansspelautoriteit operated a prioritisation policy under which it acted only against operators that met certain criteria, such as a Dutch-language website, a .nl domain or advertising aimed at the Netherlands. Operators later argued that this amounted to tolerance. Second, the volumes involved were substantial, because a whole generation of Dutch players used offshore sites while no legal alternative existed.
What the Supreme Court decided on 3 July 2026
Several district courts, faced with hundreds of claims, referred prejudicial questions to the Hoge Raad. The central question was whether a gambling agreement concluded with an operator that lacked a Dutch licence is void under article 3:40 of the Civil Code, either because it conflicts with a mandatory statutory provision or because it conflicts with public order or good morals. If the answer had been yes, everything paid to the operator would have been paid without legal ground and would have had to be repaid under the rules on undue payment.
The Supreme Court answered no, on three grounds. The Wok does not aim to affect the validity of legal acts performed in breach of it: it provides administrative and criminal sanctions, and the legislature did not attach civil consequences to a breach of the licensing requirement. The content and purpose of a gambling agreement are not in themselves contrary to public order or good morals, because Dutch policy channels the appetite for gambling towards a regulated offering rather than condemning the contract as such. And nothing in the parliamentary history suggests that nullity was intended.
The ruling is a serious setback for the mass-claim model that had grown up around this subject, because that model depended on a legal ground that applied to every player identically. It does not end individual claims. The Supreme Court expressly left open that offering games of chance without a licence can be an unlawful act towards the player, and that an individual agreement can be annulled for mistake or deceit. What has changed is that each claimant must now show something about their own case rather than relying on the operator licence status alone.
Which routes remain open
The first route is the unlawful act under article 6:162 of the Civil Code. Offering a prohibited service breaches a statutory duty, and where that breach caused the player a loss the operator can be liable in damages. The battleground here is causation and attributable loss: the operator will argue that the player would have gambled elsewhere, that winnings must be set off against losses, and that the player own conduct constitutes contributory fault under article 6:101 of the Civil Code. A claim that presents net losses over a defined period, with the account history to support them, is far more robust than one that presents gross deposits.
The second route is a defect of consent. An agreement can be annulled for mistake under article 6:228 of the Civil Code where the player was misled about a fact that mattered, or for deceit under article 3:44 where the operator deliberately created a false impression. Where an operator presented itself as legal in the Netherlands, displayed Dutch-language terms and a Dutch payment method while telling the player nothing about the absence of a Dutch licence, that is the material for such a claim. Annulment has retroactive effect, so what was paid under the annulled agreement becomes repayable.
The third route is breach of a duty of care. Licensed Dutch operators carry statutory obligations on addiction prevention: they must monitor playing behaviour, intervene when it becomes problematic, and apply the Centraal Register Uitsluiting Kansspelen (Cruks), the national self-exclusion register that a licensed operator must consult before allowing a player to play. An operator that ignored obvious signals of problem gambling, that allowed deposits to escalate without any intervention, or that kept a registered self-excluded player at the tables can be liable for the resulting loss. This route is available against licensed operators as well as unlicensed ones, and it has become the more important line of attack since July 2026.
How long you have to bring a claim
Limitation is now often the decisive issue, because the losses at stake are frequently years old. A claim in damages for an unlawful act lapses five years after the day on which the injured party became aware of both the damage and the person liable for it, and in any event twenty years after the event that caused the damage. The starting point of that five-year period is contested in gambling cases: operators argue that the player knew of the loss the moment the money was gone, while players argue that they could not have known that the operator conduct was unlawful and gave them a claim until the case law developed.
Two practical consequences follow. Anyone considering a claim should interrupt the limitation period in writing without waiting for a lawyer to complete the analysis; a clear written notice under article 3:317 of the Civil Code, reserving the right to claim and identifying the losses, is enough to stop the clock and can be repeated. And anyone whose losses date from the early years of the offshore market should assume that the twenty-year absolute limit is approaching for the oldest transactions.
The evidence you need
A gambling claim is won or lost on records, and the records are usually in the hands of the operator. Start with your own bank statements, which show every deposit and every payout and allow a net figure to be calculated for a defined period. Request your full account history from the operator; a data subject access request under article 15 of the GDPR is an effective way of obtaining it, because the playing history, deposit history and any internal notes about your account are personal data that the operator must provide.
For a duty of care claim, the material that matters is different: the pattern of deposits over time, any messages you sent to customer support about your gambling, any limits you set or asked for, any bonuses or reactivation offers the operator sent after a period of inactivity, and any registration with Cruks. Medical or debt counselling records can support the claim that your gambling was problematic and visibly so. Establishing which corporate entity actually contracted with you also matters, because the trading name on the website is often not the company that must be sued.
Enforcing a Dutch judgment against a Maltese operator
Winning in the Netherlands is not the same as being paid. Many operators are established in Malta, and in 2023 Malta added a provision to its Gaming Act, generally known as Bill 55, under which Maltese courts may refuse recognition or enforcement of foreign judgments against Maltese gambling operators on public policy grounds. The practical effect has been to make enforcement in Malta difficult.
That position is under pressure. On 18 June 2025 the European Commission opened an infringement procedure against Malta, taking the view that a systematic refusal of judgments from other member states is incompatible with the Brussels I bis Regulation on the recognition and enforcement of judgments, and undermines the mutual trust on which that regulation rests. The procedure has not yet run its course, so the outcome cannot be predicted. In the meantime enforcement strategy usually focuses on assets outside Malta: bank accounts, receivables from payment providers, and group entities established in other member states.
Jurisdiction, at least, is straightforward. A player who gambled as a consumer can sue in the Dutch court of their own domicile under the consumer provisions of the Brussels I bis Regulation, and a clause in the operator terms pointing to a foreign court does not prevent that.
Claims against licensed operators
It is a mistake to assume that the arrival of the licensed market ended the litigation. A Dutch licence brings obligations, and breach of them gives rise to liability. Licensed operators must apply deposit limits, must observe the player self-exclusion, must intervene where playing behaviour indicates a risk of addiction, and are bound by strict advertising rules that limit untargeted advertising and the use of role models. A player whose losses accumulated after 1 October 2021 at a licensed site, in circumstances where the operator saw the warning signs and did nothing, has a claim that does not depend on the licence question at all and was untouched by the Supreme Court ruling.
Complaints about a licensed operator can also be taken to the Kansspelautoriteit, which supervises compliance and can impose sanctions. A regulatory decision does not award you compensation, but a finding by the regulator can be valuable evidence in a civil claim.
What to be careful about when instructing someone
The claims industry that grew around this subject made confident promises that the Supreme Court ruling has undercut. Before signing anything, check what is actually being agreed: what percentage of any recovery is taken, whether that percentage is calculated on the gross or the net result, who pays the court fees and the costs of the other side if the claim fails, whether the mandate can be terminated, and whether the claim is being assigned or merely handled on your behalf. Assignment of a claim to a claims vehicle can complicate a case that now depends on individual circumstances, because the personal facts that make the claim work are yours rather than the vehicle.
Be equally sceptical of any assessment that does not mention the ruling of 3 July 2026. Any honest analysis of a gambling claim today starts there.
What to do now
Collect your bank statements for the whole period in which you played and identify every payment to and from the operator. Request your account history from the operator, using a data subject access request if it does not cooperate. Establish which legal entity you contracted with and where it is established. Send a written notice interrupting the limitation period. Then have the file assessed on the grounds that remain: whether the operator conduct towards you was unlawful and caused a loss that can be quantified, whether you were misled about the legality of the service, and whether the operator ignored signals it was obliged to act on.
Law & More assesses gambling loss claims against both unlicensed and licensed operators, advises on limitation and evidence, conducts proceedings before the Dutch courts and deals with enforcement against foreign operators. We will tell you honestly whether a claim is worth bringing after the Supreme Court ruling before you commit to it. Contact our lawyers to have your file reviewed, or read more about online casinos and Dutch law and about the wider framework on our civil law page.
What the Kansspelautoriteit does, and what it cannot do for you
The Kansspelautoriteit is the regulator. It grants and withdraws licences, supervises compliance with the Wok and the rules on addiction prevention and advertising, and enforces against operators that serve Dutch players without a licence. Its instruments are administrative: an order subject to a penalty payment, an administrative fine, and publication of the decision. It has also acted against parties that facilitate illegal supply, including payment providers and affiliate websites that channel Dutch traffic to unlicensed operators.
What the regulator cannot do is award you your money back. Supervision is public law and serves the general interest; compensation is a matter for the civil courts. That said, a report to the Kansspelautoriteit is worth making, and an enforcement decision naming the operator and the period concerned is useful evidence in a civil claim, because it establishes the breach that a claim in tort has to prove. Decisions are published, and an existing decision covering the period in which you played can save you a great deal of work.
The legal risks of playing at an unlicensed site
Players themselves are not prosecuted for gambling at an unlicensed site; the prohibition in the Wok is directed at the operator. The exposure is of a different kind. An unlicensed operator is outside the Dutch supervisory system, which means there is no obligation to consult Cruks, no statutory deposit limit, no intervention duty, and no supervised complaints route. If the operator refuses to pay out, you are dependent on proceedings in a foreign court or on a Dutch judgment that may be hard to enforce.
Two further points are often overlooked. Personal data supplied to an operator outside the European Economic Area is not necessarily protected to the standard the GDPR requires, and identity documents uploaded during verification are a favoured target for fraud. And banks apply anti-money-laundering monitoring to payments to and from gambling accounts; large or frequent transfers to an unlicensed operator can lead to questions from your bank, to a request for an explanation of the source of funds, or in some cases to termination of the banking relationship. Those consequences fall on the player, not on the operator.
If gambling has left you with debts, the legal route runs alongside the claim rather than through it. Debt counselling through the municipality, and where necessary the statutory debt restructuring scheme, operate on their own timetable; our civil law guides set out how those procedures relate to outstanding claims.
Frequently asked questions
Can I reclaim money lost at an unlicensed online casino in the Netherlands?
Sometimes, but the route has narrowed. On 3 July 2026 the Hoge Raad held that a gambling agreement with an operator that had no Dutch licence is not void on that ground alone, so the losses can no longer be reclaimed as an undue payment. Several Dutch court rulings have supported players’ claims, though outcomes depend on the facts.
On what legal basis can losses be reclaimed?
Since the Supreme Court ruling of 3 July 2026 the agreement itself is no longer treated as void. A claim must now be based on unlawful conduct by the operator, on annulment for mistake or deceit, or on breach of a duty of care towards a player showing signs of problem gambling. Each of those grounds is assessed on your own facts under Dutch civil law.
Does it matter when I played at the unlicensed casino?
Yes, although less than it used to. Offering online games of chance to Dutch players was unlawful for every operator before the licensed market opened on 1 October 2021, and it remains unlawful for operators without a Dutch licence today. The period now matters mainly for the limitation period and for the records you can still obtain.
How long do I have to start a claim?
A damages claim generally lapses five years after you became aware of both the loss and the party liable for it, and in any event twenty years after the event, so older losses may become unrecoverable. Because timing can be decisive, it is sensible to gather your transaction records and seek advice promptly rather than waiting.
What evidence do I need to reclaim gambling losses?
You will generally need records of your deposits, withdrawals and net losses, the identity of the operator, and confirmation that it lacked a Dutch licence during the relevant period. Bank statements and account histories from the casino are particularly useful supporting evidence.
Looking for something else? Our index of Dutch civil law guides lists everything we have written on this subject, ordered by topic.
