Online casino claims: losses and unpaid winnings

Players usually come to a lawyer with one of two problems. Either a licensed operator refuses to pay out winnings, or a player wants to recover losses from an operator that had no Dutch licence when the games were played. Since the Supreme Court’s ruling of 3 July 2026, the second type of claim can no longer rest on the argument that the gaming contract is void. It now depends on the facts of the individual case.

The two situations are governed by different rules and have very different prospects. Below we explain both, and why enforcement is often the deciding factor.

Can you recover losses from an unlicensed operator?

Not on the ground that the contract is void. You may still have a claim if the operator acted unlawfully towards you or if your consent was affected by a defect of will.

For years, these claims were built on one argument. A gaming contract with an operator without a Dutch licence was said to be void, so that everything staked could be reclaimed as an undue payment. That argument no longer holds.

On 3 July 2026 the Supreme Court (Hoge Raad) answered preliminary questions from the district courts of Amsterdam and North Holland (ECLI:NL:HR:2026:1159). It ruled that such contracts are not void. The prohibition in the Betting and Gaming Act (Wet op de kansspelen) is not intended to affect the validity of contracts that conflict with it. There is also no conflict with public order or morality. The Dutch system rests on regulation, not on a categorical ban, and criminal and administrative sanctions already exist. That reasoning also covers the period before the Dutch remote gambling market opened on 1 October 2021.

Which routes did the Supreme Court leave open?

Two routes remain. A contract can still be annulled for a defect of will, such as mistake or fraud. A claim can also still be founded on an unlawful act by the operator.

Think of an operator that deliberately targeted Dutch players, ignored its duty of care, or kept serving a player who showed clear signs of problem gambling. Such claims turn on the facts of your case, not on a general rule. Evidence about your account history and the operator’s conduct is therefore decisive. Save deposit records, bank statements, chat logs and e-mails before you start.

Why is enforcement the real obstacle?

Because a judgment in your favour is only worth something if it can be collected. Jurisdiction is usually not the problem; collecting the money is.

As a consumer, you can generally sue in the courts of your own domicile under the European rules on jurisdiction (Brussels I-bis Regulation). Enforcement is a different matter. Malta, where many operators are established, introduced a provision in its Gaming Act in 2023 that obstructs the recognition and enforcement of foreign gambling judgments against Maltese licence holders.

That provision is under review in Luxembourg. On 23 April 2026, Advocate General Emiliou delivered his opinion in case C-683/24 (Spielerschutz Sigma), referred by an Austrian court. He considered the referral inadmissible. In the alternative, he concluded that the Maltese provision is manifestly incompatible with the European rules on recognition and enforcement of judgments. The opinion is not binding, and the Court’s judgment had not yet been delivered at the time of writing.

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.

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. Each of these can be examined. You do not simply have to accept them.

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 if gambling has become a problem?

Many of these cases involve losses that were never affordable. Licensed operators must observe a duty of care and must check the central exclusion register (Cruks). A player who is struggling can register for exclusion. Support is available independently of any legal claim, and it is worth arranging first.

In summary

Since ECLI:NL:HR:2026:1159 (3 July 2026), a gaming contract with an unlicensed operator is not void, also for the period before 1 October 2021.
Claims against unlicensed operators remain possible on the basis of an unlawful act or a defect of will, but depend on the facts and the evidence.
Enforcement against Maltese licence holders is obstructed by Maltese law; the Court of Justice has not yet ruled on that provision.
Against a licensed operator that withholds winnings, the terms and the ground for refusal can be tested; start with a written demand and preserve your records.

Frequently asked questions

Can I still reclaim all my stakes from an illegal online casino?

Not on the basis that the contract is void. The Supreme Court rejected that argument on 3 July 2026. A claim based on unlawful conduct or a defect of will remains possible, depending on your case.