Casino777 liable for gambling losses: how much will the player get back? 

A player lost €76,558 over two years at Casino777. The casino asked him via email whether gambling was causing him problems. He replied in the negative and was allowed to continue playing. According to the District Court of The Hague, the operator should have done more, reports CasinoNieuws.nl. The exact amount the player will receive back has not yet been determined. 

The questions were straightforward: Did gambling affect his finances, relationships, health, or work? The answers were brief: no. However, according to the judge, that did not absolve the casino of its responsibility. 

Casino de Spa, the Belgian company behind the Dutch Casino777 platform, was found liable for damages resulting from a breach of its duty of care, according to reports. The case centers on the absence of a personal interview following signs of risky gambling behavior. For the Belgian sector, the story touches on a familiar question: what happens after a casino detects a risk? 

The casino identified high spending but stuck to emails 

According to the CasinoNieuws.nl report on the duty of care case against Casino777, the man deposited nearly €200,000 over two years. His net loss amounted to €76,558. Those two figures are not identical: deposits can be interspersed with withdrawals and do not inherently indicate how much a player ultimately loses. 

In January 2024, Casino777 sent him an email drawing attention to high spending and losses over a short period. The operator asked questions regarding potential impacts on his daily life and warned that his account could be suspended if he failed to respond. The man answered “no” to all questions that same day. 

A second questionnaire followed six months later 

Approximately six months later, the player received another similar email. This time, the casino also asked whether he could afford the amounts spent and whether his gambling behavior was fully under control. To those questions, he answered “yes.” 

About six months after that, his account was closed. The court then had to assess whether the previous emails were sufficient to fulfill the duty of care. According to reports, they were not: the operator should have conducted a personal interview. 

Unanswered phone calls did not mean the player could keep gambling 

Casino de Spa argued that players almost never answer the phone. According to CasinoNieuws.nl, the court rejected that explanation as a justification for the chosen approach. If a personal interview could not be established, the casino should have temporarily suspended the account until that conversation actually took place. 

That ruling highlights the difference between gathering a survey response and genuinely investigating what is happening. The questionnaire had been completed, but the personal interview was missing. In its guidance on personal interviews for risky gambling behavior, the Dutch Gaming Authority (Kansspelautoriteit) describes this intervention as a mandatory measure when there is a suspicion of excessive gambling or gambling addiction. 

€76,558 in losses does not equal a confirmed refund amount 

The player was represented by attorney Benzi Loonstein. According to reports, Loonstein also argued that the Dutch net deposit limit of €700 per month should have been applied prior to its formal implementation on October 1, 2024. Through this argument, he sought compensation for losses incurred from the very start of the deposits. The court rejected that reasoning. 

Furthermore, that limit should not be interpreted as an absolute prohibition on depositing higher amounts: the Dutch regulatory framework ties additional deposits above certain thresholds to an assessment of financial capacity. Loonstein’s work regarding gambling loss claims was previously discussed in our interview with Benzi Loonstein on affected gamblers. 

The question of damages remains before the court 

According to CasinoNieuws.nl, this constitutes an interim judgment. Liability has been established, but the exact compensation amount has yet to be determined. The ruling does not mean that Casino777 has already been ordered to refund the entire reported loss. 

The figure of €76,558 reflects the extent of the overall gambling loss mentioned in reports. Determining which portion of that figure qualifies as compensable damages is the next phase of the procedure. Precisely that distinction deserves careful attention in a case where a single large sum can easily dominate headline coverage. 

Why the case warrants attention in Belgium 

Casino de Spa’s Belgian domicile makes the case relevant for Belgian readers. However, the legal dispute specifically concerns the Dutch platform and its corresponding national obligations. The judgment cannot simply be transposed as a ruling applicable to Belgian players or Belgian regulations. 

Nevertheless, the debate surrounding the follow-up of risky gambling behavior is very active here. In our coverage on BAGO’s duty of care model for the Belgian gambling sector, early detection and appropriate interventions take center stage. That industry commitment is a voluntary framework, which must be distinguished from the Dutch statutory obligation at issue in this case. 

A risk signal requires proper follow-up 

Technology can help make shifts in playing behavior visible. Our article on AI as a tool to recognize problematic gambling behavior describes how wagering patterns and other data points can trigger further investigation. However, that alone does not fully explain a player’s personal situation. 

Employees must also be adequately prepared for such conversations. In our publication on the importance of training and human contact in player protection, safer gambling expert Christina Theophilos emphasized that effective follow-up requires more than procedures alone. In the case involving Casino777, the court must now determine how much this inadequate follow-up will cost the operator.