€420,000 claimed from Polymarket for a one-day delay  

The Kansspelautoriteit is demanding €420,000 from the company behind Polymarket. The regulator believes that the prediction markets platform ceased its activities accessible from the Netherlands too late. Polymarket is contesting this decision and claims to have implemented blocking measures as quickly as possible.  

A penalty resulting from a one-day delay  

The case hinges on an extremely tight deadline. Polymarket was required to prevent users located in the Netherlands from accessing its prediction markets by 17 February 2026 at the latest. According to the Kansspelautoriteit, the platform did not actually cease its Dutch operations until the following day.  

This one-day delay was enough to trigger a costly financial procedure. The Ksa is now claiming €420,000 from Adventure One QSS Inc., the company that operates Polymarket. The amount corresponds to the penalty payment stipulated in the measure imposed on the group.  

Polymarket has not paid this sum. On 16 June 2026, the Kansspelautoriteit published a recovery order sent on 19 May 2026 to Polymarket’s parent company. This document confirms the deep disagreement between the Dutch regulator and the company.  

Why the Ksa was monitoring Polymarket  

Polymarket offers prediction markets, a type of service that allows users to place bets on the outcome of future events. These events may relate to politics, the economy or other current affairs. This model has attracted a great deal of attention over the past year, including in the Netherlands.  

The Kansspelautoriteit had quickly made it clear that these prediction markets were illegal in the Netherlands when offered without a licence. Despite this stance, Polymarket continued to be mentioned in the Dutch media.  

The platform’s visibility was boosted by several public mentions. Alexander Klöpping, for instance, explained in a TV programme that he had placed bets on Polymarket regarding the Dutch elections. Bender also promoted the platform on his video channel.  

These examples helped bring Polymarket to the attention of the Ksa. For the regulator, the issue was not only the service’s prominence, but also its potential accessibility from the Netherlands. In a market regulated by a national authority, offering gambling or betting without a licence exposes an operator to enforcement measures.  

Polymarket’s defence against the KSA 

Adventure One QSS Inc. disputes the manner in which the Kansspelautoriteit applied the measure. According to the company, blocks designed to prevent access by Dutch users were put in place on 18 February 2026. The problem, according to Polymarket, is that the Ksa’s audit is said to have taken place at the very moment when these measures were still being implemented.  

In the recovery decision, the company argues that the Ksa is basing its claim on an audit that was too limited in scope, focusing solely on the period around 18 February. Polymarket maintains that it has not been established that there was any structural non-compliance.  

The company also disputes the notion that a single test at a specific point in time could automatically lead to the recovery of the full €420,000 penalty. In its view, the Ksa has not sufficiently explained why this one-off audit justified such a high penalty.  

Polymarket claims to have acted as quickly as possible within the short timeframe allowed. The company cites the complexity of the technical measures required to block access to a platform based on users’ location.  

Polymarket requested a further inspection  

Following the disputed inspection, Polymarket wrote to the Kansspelautoriteit the following day requesting a further inspection. The company’s aim was to demonstrate that sufficient measures had indeed been put in place to prevent access from the Netherlands. 

The KSA did not comply with this request. The regulator stood by its position, reiterating that the deadline was 17 February 2026. In its view, the key point was that the obligation had to be met before that deadline, and not a single day later.  

A landmark case for prediction markets  

Prediction markets are coming under increasing scrutiny. Whilst they may function as a tool for collective forecasting, they also involve financial stakes on future events.   

In the Netherlands, the Kansspelautoriteit leaves no room for ambiguity: these services cannot be freely offered to the Dutch public without an appropriate legal framework. Polymarket is now experiencing this first-hand.  

In Belgium, Polymarket is on the Gaming Commission’s blacklist.