Two quite different problems bring players to a lawyer. The first is a licensed operator that will not pay out winnings, usually after invoking its terms or an account verification requirement. The second is a claim to recover losses from an operator that had no Dutch licence at the time of play. They are governed by different rules and have very different prospects.
Recovering losses from an unlicensed operator
For years these claims were built on the argument that a gaming contract with an operator without a Dutch licence is void, so that everything staked can be reclaimed as an undue payment. That argument no longer holds. On 3 July 2026 the Supreme Court ruled, on preliminary questions from the district courts of Amsterdam and North Holland, that such contracts are not void: the prohibition in the Betting and Gaming Act does not have the purpose of affecting the validity of the contract, and there is no conflict with public order or morality, because the Dutch system rests on regulation rather than on a categorical ban. That reasoning applies to the period before the remote gambling market opened on 1 October 2021 as well.
The Supreme Court expressly left two routes open. A contract can still be annulled for a defect of will, and a claim can still be founded on an unlawful act – for instance where an operator targeted Dutch players, ignored duty-of-care obligations, or continued to serve a player showing clear signs of problem gambling. Those claims turn on the facts of the individual case rather than on a general rule, which makes evidence about the player’s account history and the operator’s conduct decisive.
Enforcement is the real obstacle
Even a successful judgment can be difficult to collect. Jurisdiction is usually not the problem: a consumer can generally sue in the courts of his own domicile. Enforcement is. Malta, where a large number of operators are established, adopted legislation in 2023 that obstructs the recognition and enforcement of foreign gambling judgments against its licence holders. An Advocate General at the Court of Justice of the European Union concluded in April 2026, in a case referred from Austria, that such a rule is incompatible with the European rules on recognition of judgments; the Court’s judgment had not yet been delivered at the time of writing. Operators licensed in Curaçao fall outside the European framework altogether, and enforcement there runs through the ordinary rules on foreign judgments.
The practical consequence is that the identity and place of establishment of the operator should be established before a claim is brought, not after judgment.
Unpaid winnings from a licensed operator
Where the operator holds a Dutch licence, the position is more favourable. The operator is bound by its licence conditions and by consumer law, and its general terms are subject to the ordinary rules on unfair terms. Refusals typically rest on account verification, on an alleged breach of bonus conditions, or on suspected multiple accounts, and each of those is capable of being examined rather than simply accepted.
Start with a written demand setting out the account, the amounts and the ground of refusal, and preserve the account history and correspondence before an account is closed. Complaints can also be raised with the Gaming Authority, which supervises licence holders, although it does not decide individual claims for money.
A note on problem gambling
Many of these cases involve losses that were never affordable. Licensed operators are subject to duty-of-care obligations and to the central exclusion register, and a player who is struggling can register for exclusion. Support is available independently of any legal claim, and it is worth arranging first.
Advice
We assess whether a claim is realistically worth bringing, against whom, and in which forum, and we act in proceedings against operators and in complaints to the regulator. Please contact Law & More.
