Rather than imposing a strict separation for hybrid brands – companies offering both online and physical gaming – the Dutch Ministry of Justice and Security has opted for a more flexible framework.
A change of direction at the heart of regulation
The aim of the bill to ban all untargeted gambling advertising (Besluit Orka) was to protect vulnerable groups, particularly young adults. The advisory authorities had recommended a clear separation of brands for hybrid businesses – those operating both in physical establishments and online. But faced with possible legislative delays and the risk of financial prosecution, the Ministry decided against imposing a complete split.
Internal documents recently made public show that there is a great deal of tension within the administration on this subject. A requirement for a radical rebranding would have meant relaunching the entire legislative process, with considerable delays.
What is at stake for operators?
So-called ‘hybrid’ operators represent a complex category. Nederlandse Loterij, for example, combines the physical lottery with online sports betting under the TOTO brand, with outlets in thousands of shops. Holland Casino, meanwhile, is primarily a network of land-based casinos, but with a growing digital presence. These players argued that having to abandon or change their brands would be extremely costly. They also raised concerns about fairness: a single rule could unfairly disadvantage hybrid operators compared to physical operators.
The Department sought a compromise: rather than total separation, it set a standard requiring advertising for physical games to be sufficiently distinct from that for online games through the choice of visuals, words and context used. For example, the use of distinct fonts for messages relating to online games and those relating to physical games, or even geographical restrictions on certain advertising media.
The Kansspelautoriteit (Ksa) then sent a communication to the operators concerned, specifying that the colour and typography of their logos should be sufficiently different depending on whether they were advertising online games or physical activity. This recommendation illustrates the effort to make the separation visually perceptible, even without a formal division of the brand.
For example, Nederlandse Loterij proposed using the name ‘TOTO Winkel’ (shop) for its land-based activities, with a commitment to no longer use certain visual elements emblematic of its online offering for this version. Other operators have opted for more subtle distinctions between the logos of their two branches.
The headache of sports sponsorship
The most heated discussions centred on the use of brand names on sports sponsorship outfits and panels. Adding specific references to physical casinos on shirts may seem obvious, but in practice, the limited space and visibility constraints make this solution unattractive for many operators.
The Nederlandse Loterij has proposed that from 2025 all sports sponsorship contracts should always display the full form ‘TOTO Winkel’, possibly accompanied by a message inviting people to visit a physical outlet.
In the transitional phase, however, the authorities have authorised the signing of new sponsorship contracts until the summer of 2025, fearing that a complete freeze on advertising commitments could lead to an avalanche of rushed contracts just before the stricter rules come into force.
The question of ambassadors and celebrities
Another major point of contention was the ban on using public figures or celebrities in advertising for physical games if this would indirectly promote online games. According to internal documents, the Ksa was concerned that popular celebrities, including former sportsmen and women, might unwittingly draw young people’s attention to online platforms, even if they were only officially advertising land-based services.
Holland Casino challenged this approach, arguing that celebrity appearances at cultural or gastronomic events organised in its establishments should not be equated with gambling advertising. The regulator rejected this argument on the grounds that any element contributing to increased brand awareness in a gaming context should be treated with caution. Only a few very limited exceptions were tolerated, provided that the gaming aspect was not central.
The situation in Belgium
In Belgium, there is an almost total ban on advertising for gambling operators, whether online or physical. This ban covers a very broad spectrum of media: television commercials, radio advertisements, promotional videos on social networks, posters in public spaces and even advertisements in newspapers or magazines.
Sports sponsorship is permitted as long as the logo does not occupy more than 75 cm² of the total surface area of the clothing and is not affixed to the front. Sponsorship through sub-brands such as Golden Palace News and U-Experts is also permitted for the time being.
There is an exception to these rules for National Lottery games, but it is strongly contested.