Online gambling losses: which claims remain after the 2026 ruling?

Since 3 July 2026 you can no longer reclaim online gambling losses from an unlicensed operator simply because it had no Dutch licence. Claims are still possible, but they must now rest 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 your own facts.

On that date the Hoge Raad (Supreme Court) answered prejudicial questions on this point (ECLI:NL:HR:2026:1159). It held that a gambling agreement with an operator without a Dutch licence is not void 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. Below we explain what the ruling means, which routes remain open, and what you can do now.

What did Dutch gambling law require, and since when?

Offering a game of chance in the Netherlands without a Dutch licence has always been an offence. Since 1 October 2021 a Dutch licence for online gambling has existed, and operators without one are still acting unlawfully.

The Wet op de kansspelen (Games of Chance Act, Wok) contains the prohibition in article 1 paragraph 1 under a. Until 2021 there was no licence available for online games of chance at all. That meant 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. That 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. Operators sometimes argue the opposite, so the point is worth stressing: 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. 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 many Dutch players used offshore sites while no legal alternative existed.

What did the Supreme Court decide on 3 July 2026?

The Supreme Court held that a gambling agreement with an unlicensed operator is neither void nor voidable for that reason. That reasoning also covers the period before the Dutch online market opened on 1 October 2021.

District courts faced with large numbers of claims, including the courts of Amsterdam and North Holland, referred prejudicial questions to the Hoge Raad. The central question was whether such an agreement is void under article 3:40 of the Civil Code. That could be so 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. It would then have had to be repaid under the rules on undue payment.

The Supreme Court answered no, on two grounds:

• The Wok does not aim to affect the validity of contracts. The Act provides administrative and criminal sanctions, and the legislature did not attach civil consequences to a breach of the licensing requirement. Nothing in the parliamentary history suggests that nullity or voidability was intended.
• No conflict with public order or good morals. The content and purpose of a gambling agreement are not in themselves contrary to public order or good morals. Dutch policy channels the appetite for gambling towards a regulated offering rather than condemning the contract as such.

The ruling is a serious setback for the mass-claim model that had grown up around this subject. That model depended on a legal ground that applied to every player in the same way. The ruling does not end individual claims. The Supreme Court expressly left open that such agreements can, depending on the circumstances, be annulled for a defect of consent or give rise to a claim for an unlawful act. What has changed is that you must now show something about your own case, rather than relying on the operator licence status alone.

Which routes remain open?

Three routes remain: an unlawful act, a defect of consent, and breach of a duty of care. Each one turns on your own facts and evidence.

Can you claim damages for an unlawful act?

Yes, under article 6:162 of the Civil Code. Offering a prohibited service breaches a statutory duty, and where that breach caused you a loss, the operator can be liable in damages. The battleground here is causation and attributable loss. The operator will argue that you would have gambled elsewhere, that winnings must be set off against losses, and that your 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.

Can the agreement be annulled for mistake or deceit?

Possibly. An agreement can be annulled for mistake under article 6:228 of the Civil Code where you were misled about a fact that mattered, or for deceit under article 3:44 where the operator deliberately created a false impression. Suppose an operator presented itself as legal in the Netherlands, displayed Dutch-language terms and a Dutch payment method, and told you 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.

Did the operator breach its duty of care?

This route is open against licensed and unlicensed operators alike. Licensed Dutch operators carry statutory obligations on addiction prevention: they must monitor playing behaviour and intervene when it becomes problematic. They must also consult the Centraal Register Uitsluiting Kansspelen (Cruks), the national self-exclusion register, before allowing a player to play. An operator that ignored obvious signals of problem gambling, let deposits escalate without any intervention, or kept a registered self-excluded player at the tables can be liable for the resulting loss. Since July 2026 this has become the more important line of attack.

How long do you have to bring a claim?

A claim in damages for an unlawful act lapses five years after you became aware of both the damage and the party liable for it, and in any event twenty years after the event that caused the damage (article 3:310 of the Civil Code). Because the losses at stake are often years old, limitation is now frequently the decisive issue.

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. 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. First, if you are considering a claim, interrupt the limitation period in writing without waiting for a full legal 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 it can be repeated. Second, if your losses date from the early years of the offshore market, assume that the twenty-year absolute limit is approaching for the oldest transactions.

What evidence do 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 and request your full account history from the operator.

Your bank statements show every deposit and every payout, and allow a net figure to be calculated for a defined period. A data subject access request under article 15 of the GDPR is an effective way of obtaining the account history. Your 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, different material matters:

• 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;
• any registration with Cruks.

Medical or debt counselling records can support the claim that your gambling was problematic, and visibly so. It also matters which company actually contracted with you, because the trading name on the website is often not the entity that must be sued.

Can you enforce 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 Maltese law currently makes enforcement there difficult.

In 2023 Malta added a provision to its Gaming Act, generally known as Bill 55. Under it, Maltese courts may refuse recognition or enforcement of foreign judgments against Maltese gambling operators on public policy grounds. In practice, that has made enforcement in Malta difficult.

That position is under pressure. On 18 June 2025 the European Commission opened an infringement procedure against Malta. In its view, 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 usually focuses on assets outside Malta: bank accounts, receivables from payment providers, and group companies established in other member states.

Jurisdiction, at least, is straightforward. If you gambled as a consumer, you can sue in the Dutch court of your own domicile under the consumer provisions of the Brussels I bis Regulation. A clause in the operator terms pointing to a foreign court does not prevent that.

What about operators licensed in Curaçao?

Curaçao falls outside the European framework. However, it is part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Under article 40 of the Charter for the Kingdom (Statuut voor het Koninkrijk), a Dutch judgment can be enforced in Curaçao, subject to the local rules of Curaçao on enforcement. Note that an operator with a Curaçao licence is not always established in Curaçao itself.

The practical lesson: establish the identity and place of establishment of the operator before you bring a claim, not after judgment.

Can you claim against a licensed operator?

Yes. A Dutch licence brings obligations, and breach of them gives rise to liability that the Supreme Court ruling did not touch.

It is a mistake to assume that the arrival of the licensed market ended the litigation. Licensed operators must apply deposit limits, observe player self-exclusion and intervene where playing behaviour indicates a risk of addiction. They are also bound by strict advertising rules that limit untargeted advertising and the use of role models. Suppose your losses accumulated after 1 October 2021 at a licensed site, and the operator saw the warning signs and did nothing. Your claim then does not depend on the licence question at all.

What can you do if a licensed operator refuses to pay out winnings?

Your position is stronger here. An operator with a Dutch licence is bound by its licence conditions and by consumer law, and its general terms can be tested against the rules on unfair terms.

Refusals usually rest on one of three grounds: account verification, an alleged breach of bonus conditions, or suspected multiple accounts. Under Article 6:233 of the Dutch Civil Code an unreasonably onerous term in the general terms can be annulled, so each ground can be examined.

Which steps should you take first?

• Send a written demand that sets out the account, the amounts and the ground for refusal.
• Preserve your account history and all correspondence before the account is closed.
• Consider a complaint to the Gaming Authority (Kansspelautoriteit). It supervises licence holders, but it does not decide individual claims for money.

What does the Kansspelautoriteit do, and what can it not do for you?

The Kansspelautoriteit is the regulator: it enforces against operators, but it cannot award you your money back. Compensation is a matter for the civil courts.

The regulator 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.

Supervision is public law and serves the general interest. Even so, a report to the Kansspelautoriteit is worth making. 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.

What are the legal risks of playing at an unlicensed site?

Players themselves are not prosecuted for gambling at an unlicensed site, because the prohibition in the Wok is directed at the operator. The risks you run are of a different kind.

If the operator refuses to pay out, you depend on proceedings abroad or on a Dutch judgment that may be hard to enforce. Banks also apply anti-money-laundering checks to payments to gambling accounts and may ask you to explain the source of funds.

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.

What should you do now?

Secure your records and interrupt the limitation period first. Then have the file assessed on the grounds that remain.

1. Collect your bank statements for the whole period in which you played, and identify every payment to and from the operator.
2. Request your account history from the operator, using a data subject access request if it does not cooperate.
3. Establish which legal entity you contracted with and where it is established.
4. Send a written notice interrupting the limitation period.
5. Have the file assessed: was the operator conduct towards you unlawful, and did it cause a loss that can be quantified? Were you misled about the legality of the service? Did the operator ignore signals it was obliged to act on?

What should you check as a player?

Check first whether your losses fall within the five-year limitation period of Article 3:310 of the Civil Code, and whether you played at a licensed or an unlicensed site. Then work through these points:

• Which legal entity did you contract with, and in which country is it established?
• Do your bank statements show a net loss over a defined period, not just gross deposits?
• Did the operator ignore signals of problem gambling, a Cruks registration or limits you asked for?
• Has the Kansspelautoriteit published an enforcement decision covering the operator and the period you played?
• If a claims company approaches you: what percentage does it take, who pays the costs if the claim fails, and is your claim assigned or only handled?

What can we do for you with online gambling losses?

We handle these claims as part of our civil law practice; background is in our article on online casinos and Dutch law.

• We assess your file against the routes left open by the Supreme Court ruling of 3 July 2026.
• We draft the written notice that interrupts the limitation period under Article 3:317 of the Civil Code.
• We send a data subject access request under Article 15 GDPR to obtain your account history from the operator.
• We calculate your net loss per period from bank statements and account records.
• We bring the claim before the Dutch court of your domicile and look for assets outside Malta for enforcement.

Summary

• Since 3 July 2026 (ECLI:NL:HR:2026:1159), a gambling agreement with an unlicensed operator is not void, also for the period before 1 October 2021. Losses can no longer be reclaimed as an undue payment on that ground alone.
• Claims remain possible on the basis of an unlawful act, mistake or deceit, or breach of a duty of care, but depend on your own facts and records.
• Limitation is often decisive: five years from awareness of the loss and the liable party, twenty years at most. Interrupt it in writing now.
• Licensed operators can be liable for ignoring signs of problem gambling, regardless of the licence question.
• Enforcement against Maltese operators is obstructed by Maltese law; the European Commission infringement procedure against Malta is still pending.

Frequently asked questions