Netherlands rejects total ban on gambling advertising: Belgium is already familiar with the debate 

A few days after the vote in The Hague, a question remains that is also on Belgium’s mind: how do you protect players when licensed companies are bound by strict advertising rules, while illegal operators remain visible online? 

On Tuesday, September 29, the Dutch House of Representatives (Tweede Kamer) rejected a proposal to ban advertising for all gambling, both online and offline. The motion received the support of 64 seats, twelve short of the required majority. At the same time, the House did choose a firmer approach toward illegal offerings and a potential increase of the minimum age to 21. Belgium has already introduced this age limit for private gambling. 

A ban intended to go further than just online casinos 

SGP MP Diederik van Dijk wanted to prevent gambling companies from shifting their advertising to products that fall outside an online gambling ad ban. His proposal therefore called for a single rule across the entire sector: no advertising for either online or land-based gambling. 

That majority was not achieved. Official voting results on Dutch gambling policy confirm that the motion was rejected. This does not mean that existing Dutch advertising restrictions will disappear; the House simply rejected this proposal for a more far-reaching total ban. 

Belgium is stricter, but the playing field is not identical 

For Belgian players, the debate sounds familiar. Since July 2023, private gambling operators have been subject to a ban on advertising in principle, with exceptions and transitional rules. The Belgian approach is therefore already extensive, but it would be inaccurate to claim that every form of advertising for every gambling product has disappeared. 

The National Lottery, in particular, makes the comparison interesting. Its lottery and scratch-off products fall under a separate legal framework. In our dossier explaining why the advertising ban does not apply in the same way to the National Lottery, that exact tension emerges: why does the treatment differ when the state aims to protect players from gambling harm? 

In the Netherlands as well, the role of the state was on the table. A second motion by Van Dijk called for a scenario in which the State completely withdraws from offering and operating gambling activities. That proposal, which impacts Holland Casino and Nederlandse Loterij, also failed to secure a majority. 

The Dutch vote has no impact on Belgian legislation. However, it demonstrates how difficult it is to align advertising policy, player protection, and the interests of state-owned enterprises within a single political narrative. 

Moving toward age 21, but only once conditions are met 

The House did, however, support another motion by Van Dijk and Mirjam Bikker. This calls for clear, verifiable targets for tackling illegal offerings and preventing channelization leakage to the black market. Once those conditions are met, the minimum age for the most high-risk gambling activities should be raised to 21 as soon as possible. 

This does not constitute an immediate age increase. It is an adopted request to the government, tied to specific conditions. Belgium already took this step for private gambling and betting on September 1, 2024. Our coverage on the Belgian minimum age of 21 for gambling describes which activities fall under this rule. For lottery products such as Lotto and EuroMillions, a different age limit applies. 

The difference lies mainly in the sequence of events. The Netherlands explicitly links the next step to demonstrable progress against illegal operators. Belgium, meanwhile, must evaluate how existing, stricter rules operate in practice. A drop in participation among licensed operators does not in itself prove that players have stopped gambling or shifted to illegal websites. 

From a public health perspective, the call for protection remains clear. In its advisory report on gambling advertising and a minimum age of 21, the Belgian Supreme Health Council advocated for a ban on all forms of gambling advertising. That report is a recommendation and should not be confused with the full scope of currently enacted law. 

Platforms come more directly into focus 

Where the total ban stalled, a motion regarding online platforms found sufficient support. The House backed the request to fine platforms that continue to display illegal gambling ads following a takedown request. Proposals for a centralized list of illegal operators and a pilot project to disrupt their digital infrastructure were also passed. 

These represent political mandates rather than proof that such measures are already fully operational. For Belgium, this direction is highly relevant. Gambling Club reported on thousands of illegal gambling advertisements reported to Meta by the Gaming Commission. In 2025, there were over 8,500 takedown notifications. That figure should not be equated with an equal number of permanent removals. 

Furthermore, the Dutch House supported a proposal to inform visitors about the risks when a gambling site undergoes a DNS block. Additionally, considerations will be made on how the Kansspelautoriteit (Gaming Authority) can utilize an open-source risk model from the University of Amsterdam (UvA) in its supervisory work. Attention is thus partially shifting to the infrastructure and information channels surrounding illegal offerings. 

For Belgian policymakers, this aligns with an existing enforcement question: how do you prevent a removed advertisement or blocked domain from being swiftly replaced? Advertising restrictions for licensed companies and enforcement against illegal campaigns are distinct tasks—one measure does not render the other redundant. 

The debate is also about what demonstrably works 

The fear that stricter rules push players toward the black market is present in both countries. However, a political concern does not constitute a proven effect. In our article on the debate between a gambling advertising ban and diversion to the black market, the opposing arguments of researchers and industry representatives are presented side by side. 

This tension explains why the conditions attached to the Dutch age motion are critical. The government must not only announce measures, but also set measurable targets against which the policy can be evaluated. For Belgium, a similar task exists in evaluating current policy: measuring which players are protected, how illegal operators reach them, and where enforcement yields tangible results. 

Other Dutch proposals did not pass. The House rejected motions regarding a similar duty of care for cryptocurrency service providers and research into regulating prediction markets. Proposals concerning a reduction in gambling tax and dedicated funding for charity lotteries were held over. The vote thus produced a combination of rejected ban provisions, conditional tightenings, and new mandates targeting illegal supply.