Google and Meta under pressure: gambling regulator keeps legal action on the table 

Ksa chairman Michel Groothuizen defends talks with Google and Meta over illegal gambling. Why is this approach also relevant to Belgium? 

Convincing Google and Meta to block illegal gambling advertising while preparing for possible legal action. That is the approach defended on 14 October by Michel Groothuizen, chairman of the Dutch Kansspelautoriteit. He was responding to calls for tougher action against major technology companies. In his view, simply issuing fines is not enough if illegal gambling remains easily accessible in the meantime. 

For Belgium, the discussion touches on a familiar problem. A casino without a local licence can reach players through international platforms even though those players are supposed to be protected by national rules. The Dutch regulator is therefore looking for ways to intervene with the companies that enable the visibility of and payments to illegal operators. 

Five years of legalisation, but illegal gambling remains 

The regulated Dutch online gambling market turns five this month. According to Groothuizen, around 90% of Dutch online gamblers play exclusively with legal operators. However, he describes a far less favourable picture when it comes to money: for every euro gambled with legal operators, another euro is said to be spent in the illegal market. 

These are two different measures. The proportion of players who remain within the regulated market does not automatically indicate what proportion of the money ends up there. The figures are presented in his column as reflecting the Dutch situation and should not be applied to Belgium without separate research. 

Gambling Club previously reported on concerns surrounding Belgium’s illegal gambling market. There too, the distinction between reach, player numbers and spending matters. A large group using legal websites does not rule out unlicensed gambling having a significant financial impact. 

Issuing a fine is different from collecting it 

Groothuizen describes the collection of fines from illegal operators as a frustrating part of enforcement. A sanction makes clear that rules have been broken. But when the money is barely collected, the question remains how much practical impact the penalty has on the operator. 

According to him, the Ksa has therefore also pursued a different approach for around a year and a half. It tries to make illegal gambling offers harder to find and to disrupt payments to and from those operators. This shifts the focus towards the infrastructure on which a gambling website relies. 

The difference is tangible. An illegal casino that receives a fine on paper can still continue attracting visitors. An advertisement that disappears or a misleading redirect website that becomes inaccessible cuts off one route to that casino. The impact then depends on whether the operator reappears elsewhere. 

A recent example is the removal of 26 copied casino websites within 48 hours. Misleading addresses were removed. This did not automatically mean that the illegal casinos behind them had disappeared, but it did close off one gateway. 

Criticism of talks with Meta remains 

The Ksa’s explanation comes at a time when pressure on the regulator is increasing. Groothuizen refers to VVD MP Bart Bikkers, who called for a tougher approach towards major tech companies. Lawyer Justin Franssen also wants the Ksa to take stronger action. 

Gambling Club previously reported on Franssen’s criticism of the Ksa’s approach to Meta. According to the lawyer, legal options already exist for acting against parties that facilitate illegal gambling. His objection is that private parties are starting legal proceedings while the regulator continues to hold talks. 

Groothuizen now explains why he is allowing dialogue and case-building to proceed in parallel. He argues that proceedings against a major technology company could take a long time and have an uncertain outcome. These companies have the resources to challenge evidence, powers and legal arguments in detail. 

His reference to a possible five-year timeframe is an estimate, not a fixed duration for announced legal proceedings. He does not announce any specific sanction or new case in this column. 

Google whitelist intended to keep illegal operators out 

The most concrete cooperation project mentioned by Groothuizen is a joint task force. It is working with Google on a whitelist of legal gambling operators in the European Union. According to him, such a list could help exclude other operators. 

The talks took place in Dublin last spring, according to the Ksa chairman, together with other European regulators and representatives from Google and Meta. He presents this cooperation as a way to achieve practical improvements more quickly while keeping legal action available as an option. 

The project is still under development. Groothuizen’s column on cooperation and enforcement gives no launch date, full technical details or measured results. It is therefore too early to say that Google has already succeeded in shutting out illegal gambling advertising through this system. 

For possible use in Belgium, the design of the list is particularly important. It would need to distinguish in which country an operator is licensed and which website belongs to that authorisation. A collection of brand names alone would not be enough to assess copied addresses and misleading redirects. 

Vulnerable players remain in the picture 

Groothuizen says that illegal gambling advertisements also reach people who have registered in self-exclusion systems. He also refers to advertising aimed at minors. He writes that the Ksa can collect evidence of the role platforms play in distributing this content. 

These allegations must be distinguished from a final court ruling on the liability of a specific company. The column describes the regulator’s position and enforcement strategy, not the outcome of a completed case. 

The way vulnerability is used to attract players was previously discussed in the KVA warning about illegal gambling advertising on Facebook and Instagram. In that case, advertisements used gambling losses as a hook to direct people to Telegram groups and then to unlicensed operators. 

For Belgium, the relevant question is whether player protection also remains effective outside the environment of licensed operators. National rules are less effective when people are encouraged through advertising to gamble again on websites that fall outside that supervision. 

European rules divide responsibility 

Groothuizen mentions the Digital Services Act as one possible legal route. This European law imposes obligations on online intermediaries, including platforms. The largest services face additional requirements relating to systemic risks. 

However, not all powers lie with a single national gambling regulator. The European Commission explains the division of responsibilities under the Digital Services Act. It has exclusive authority to supervise the additional systemic-risk obligations of very large online platforms and search engines. For other DSA obligations, responsibility is shared with national authorities. 

That is why the legal route is more complicated than simply issuing an immediate fine. Investigations, cooperation and any eventual proceedings must be based on the correct obligations and brought before the appropriate authority. This does not make pressure on platforms unnecessary, but it does determine how that pressure can be applied legally. 

What does this mean for Belgium? 

For Belgium, the column does not introduce any new measure from the Belgian Gaming Commission. It does, however, describe an approach whose effects could be relevant across borders. Google and Meta operate in multiple countries, while gambling operators must be assessed for authorisation at national level. 

Gambling Club previously examined the Belgian angle in its article on the Dutch proceedings involving Meta and what they could mean for BAGO. Legal action by an industry association and supervision by a public authority are two different routes. Both can raise questions about the role of advertising platforms. 

Ultimately, the practical question is what changes for players. Are reports dealt with more quickly? Do removed advertisements return through other accounts? Are copied casino names detected? And does a whitelist also prevent advertisements from redirecting users to a different domain? 

Talks must lead to demonstrable results 

Groothuizen explicitly does not rule out legal action. If voluntary agreements produce too little, he writes, the Ksa will take a confrontational approach. His preference for dialogue is therefore not a promise that Google and Meta will remain untouched. 

The tension lies in the time between a discussion and a visible result. Critics want the regulator to use its powers. Groothuizen wants to avoid a situation in which lengthy proceedings delay faster solutions or lead to the wrong legal outcome. 

For Belgian players and policymakers, the outcomes matter most. A functioning whitelist, fewer repeated violations and fewer routes towards unlicensed gambling would show what cooperation can achieve. As long as such results have not yet been demonstrated, calls for legal pressure are likely to continue.