Does a new Google rule open the door to illegal gambling adverts in Belgium? 

From 10 August 2026, it will become easier for certain advertisers using Google Ad Manager to purchase adverts for online gambling and social casinos in more countries. In doing so, an important layer of control appears to be disappearing: in certain cases, the end advertiser will no longer need to be certified by Google in advance for this specific channel. 

That may sound technical, but the consequences could be significant. This is particularly true in countries such as Belgium and the Netherlands, where online gambling advertising is strictly regulated and only licensed providers are permitted to advertise. 

More scope for gambling adverts 

The change could mean that publishers see more frequent adverts for online casinos, sports betting, bingo, slots, lotteries, social casinos and possibly also gambling-like crypto platforms. 

Google emphasises that all adverts must comply with local legislation. In practice, however, it appears that some of the control is shifting to ad buyers, publishers and institutions within Google Ad Manager. 

That is precisely where the risk lies. 

If the end advertiser is no longer required to be certified by Google in advance in all cases, there will be more scope for intermediaries. These could include foreign buyers, affiliates or marketing agencies purchasing campaigns on behalf of providers who are not licensed locally. 

This is particularly sensitive for Belgium 

In Belgium, gambling advertising has been significantly restricted in recent years. Advertising is only permitted under strict conditions, and illegal gambling is not allowed to be promoted under any circumstances. Operators without a Belgian licence are operating illegally if they target Belgian players. 

If advertisers are subject to less stringent checks beforehand, this could result in illegal casinos still appearing on Belgian websites. Affiliates working for unlicensed operators may also find it easier to purchase adverts. The same applies to social casinos, crypto-casinos or prediction markets that, in terms of their presentation, closely resemble gambling. 

This creates a practical problem for publishers. They may inadvertently display adverts that are not permitted locally, whilst they may only discover who is actually behind the campaign after the fact. 

The Netherlands may also face this issue 

In the Netherlands, only operators licensed by the Kansspelautoriteit are permitted to offer and promote online games of chance. For standard Google Ads campaigns in the Netherlands, Google also requires operators to hold such a licence. 

However, it is precisely in programmatic advertising that the vulnerability in the chain lies. There may be several parties between the publisher and the ultimate advertiser. The more links in the chain, the greater the chance that illegal operators will still manage to buy visibility through roundabout means. 

This is not only a problem for regulators, but also for legitimate providers. They must comply with strict rules, whilst illegal competitors may be able to advertise more cheaply and aggressively via foreign channels. 

The big question is: who monitors the buyers? 

The key question is therefore not just what Google technically permits, but above all how these particular advertisers are vetted. 

This is important because some parties in the advertising market work for both licensed providers and the illegal market. If such parties gain access to broader capabilities within Google Ad Manager, this could open the door to adverts that are not acceptable locally. 

Google emphasises compliance with local legislation. But if the prior vetting of the end advertiser is relaxed, enforcement will rely primarily on retrospective detection. By then, the adverts will often already have been displayed. 

Is Google playing with fire? 

The question is whether Google is placing too much trust in parties within a market where the stakes are high and boundaries are deliberately being tested. Certainly in Belgium, where legislation is specifically designed to severely restrict gambling advertising, this change could cause fresh tensions. 

It would therefore come as no surprise if the Gaming Commission in Belgium and the Kansspelautoriteit in the Netherlands were to scrutinise this closely. The first cases are unlikely to be long in coming once illegal providers become visible via this route. 

Player protection 

The new Google rule may be intended as a technical relaxation for authorised advertising buyers, but in practice it creates a serious risk. Less prior certification means greater responsibility for buyers and publishers. This is precisely where illegal operators can exploit the system. Furthermore, a Google employee was recently caught placing bets with Polymarket. 

For Belgium and the Netherlands, this is more than just a technical change to advertising. It directly affects the protection of players, the position of licensed operators and the fight against the illegal gambling market.