Hoge Raad: a blow to players’ appeals
•
1 Dec 2025 •
Reading time: 3 minutes The hopes of thousands of Dutch players of recovering their online losses are fading: the Advocate General of the Hoge Raad has just issued an unfavourable opinion on the validity of claims to cancel gambling contracts and claim refunds. In future, case law could well close the door on these massive claims once and for all.
A clear opinion
At the end of November 2025, the Advocate General (AG) of the Hoge Raad, S.D. Lindenbergh, issued an opinion in the context of several preliminary questions submitted by Dutch courts to clarify the validity of losses incurred in online casinos.
What is at stake? To determine whether contracts concluded before 1 October 2021 – when the legal framework for online gambling did not exist – can be considered void, paving the way for restitution of lost sums. For the AG, the answer is no: these contracts are not invalid simply because the operator did not have a licence.
According to the AG, while the law governing gambling prohibits the offering of games of chance without authorisation, it never explicitly provided for the invalidity of agreements entered into prior to legalisation. The legislator’s intention was not to render these contracts null and void.
As a result, the possibility of claiming reimbursement of losses on the basis of what is known as an undue payment no longer holds water in the AG’s view.
The Advocate General’s arguments
AG Lindenbergh’s arguments are based in particular on an analysis of the content, history and purpose of the Gambling Act. He explained that at no time did the text, its genesis or its application suggest that contracts concluded without a licence should be null and void.
Furthermore, he notes that before 2021, online gambling in unlicensed casinos had already existed for many years. However, at that time, no legislative or administrative step ever suggested that these contracts could be cancelled retroactively.
Another important point: in his view, the protection of players often invoked does not justify going so far as to systematically cancel contracts. Other, less radical remedies, such as annulment on the grounds of error or civil liability for fault, are more appropriate than general nullity.
A fragmented legal context and dashed hopes
Until recently, several courts had ruled in favour of the players. For example, on 17 April 2024, Rechtbank Overijssel ruled that the absence of a licence rendered the agreement null and void – forcing operators to repay hundreds of thousands of euros. Similar rulings followed in various cases, and law firms such as Loonstein Advocaten announced collective claims for restitution of the losses suffered by thousands of players.
But the AG’s position changes the situation. If the Hoge Raad agrees with the AG – as it frequently does – these thousands of claims are likely to be rejected. Several courts have already decided to freeze their decisions pending the Hoge Raad’s verdict.
Here’s a concrete example: in a recent case, a player who lost €94,479.65 had his appeal rejected, and was also required to pay €5,000 in legal fees. The reason given was that he should have used loss prevention mechanisms such as self-exclusion or wagering limits rather than claiming restitution.
Today, it is clear that the legal battle for the massive restitution of losses is far from won. Even if the AG’s opinion is not binding, it is rarely ignored. However, this does not mean the end of any possibility of appeal. The AG itself suggests that some players might try other avenues – for example, by invoking error, defect in consent or civil liability if the operator has failed to fulfil its obligations.
But winning a case on these grounds would be far more complex, costly and uncertain. For the time being, the hope of seeing a massive return of funds to victimised players seems highly unlikely.