Holland Casino’s RTP figures will remain confidential 

The Dutch courts have ruled in favour of the Ministry of Finance in a dispute concerning the disclosure of information relating to Holland Casino’s return-to-player (RTP) rates. The Amsterdam court considers that certain data constitutes trade secrets, as their publication could reveal details about the company’s strategy and operations. 

RTP figures to remain confidential 

A dispute between Two Kings Consultants and the Dutch Ministry of Finance was heard by the Amsterdam court. At the heart of the case were several documents containing, in particular, figures on return-to-player rates and the share retained by the casino, as well as analyses and forecasts regarding their future trends. 

The case stems from a request submitted by Two Kings Consultants. This company, the former owner of the MeneerCasino casino affiliate site, sought to obtain correspondence between the Ministry of Finance and Holland Casino concerning the operator’s return-to-player rates. The request was made under Dutch legislation on access to public information. 

In October 2025, the Ministry of Finance published its decision regarding this request. A similar request had previously been made to the Ministry of Justice and Security. However, that initial search had failed to identify any relevant documents. 

The situation turned out to be different at the Ministry of Finance. A total of fourteen documents were found. However, their existence did not mean that their entire content would be made public. One document was not published, and the other thirteen were only partially disclosed. Two Kings Consultants considered this response insufficient and contested the Ministry’s decision to redact certain passages. The company therefore took the matter to court to seek a more complete disclosure. 

The court ruled that some of this information could legitimately remain confidential. According to its judgement, disclosing it would not merely reveal a few percentages: it could also allow conclusions to be drawn about how Holland Casino conducts its business and defines its strategy. 

In its decision, the Amsterdam court summarised the nature of the passages in question as follows: 

‘The passages in documents 1, 3 and 6 to 9, the disclosure of which was refused, concern figures relating to return rates and the house edge, as well as analyses or forecasts of changes to these percentages.’ 

Why did the Ministry refuse to publish everything? 

The Ministry of Finance regarded Holland Casino as a third party whose interests needed to be protected. Two Kings Consultants contested this position, arguing that such protection did not apply since Holland Casino operates under the responsibility of the Minister of Finance. 

The Ministry argued that the operator was operating in a competitive market. Two Kings Consultants, on the other hand, pointed to Holland Casino’s monopoly on the land-based casino market in the Netherlands. 

A monopoly does not preclude competition, according to the court 

The various parties appeared before the Amsterdam court in June 2026. The judges had to determine whether the Ministry of Finance had correctly applied the rules by refusing to make certain passages public. 

On the issue of ministerial responsibility, the court did not accept the reasoning put forward by Two Kings Consultants. The documents in question were held by the Ministry, and the request for access to the information had itself been addressed to that Ministry. In these circumstances, the court considered that it was not relevant, for the purposes of resolving the dispute, to determine whether Holland Casino should be regarded as an organisation falling under the responsibility of the Minister of Finance. 

The court then turned its attention to the other arguments. The debate surrounding competition was central to the case. Two Kings Consultants highlighted Holland Casino’s position in the Dutch land-based market. However, the court considered that the Ministry and Holland Casino had sufficiently demonstrated that the company faced competition. 

And this competition does not stop at the Netherlands’ borders. In the court’s view, Holland Casino’s physical venues must contend not only with slot machine halls, but also with casinos located in neighbouring countries. Belgium and Germany are explicitly mentioned in the judgement. 

The Amsterdam court states: 

‘The court finds that there is a competitive market for Holland Casino’s gaming services, both for land-based and online gaming.’

The disputed documents did not contain only isolated rates. According to the evidence examined by the court, certain passages also included analyses carried out, in particular, by the company’s analysts. These referred to return rates, the house edge, as well as analyses or forecasts of changes to these percentages. 

It was precisely this combination that led the court to regard their disclosure as problematic. According to the court, the information contained in the documents made it possible to deduce details concerning the operations of Holland Casino and its strategic direction. 

The court therefore upheld the Ministry of Finance’s reasoning: the passages in question could be withheld from publication due to their commercially sensitive nature. 

Holland Casino has also been granted a new licence until 2031 

Holland Casino will be able to continue its online gambling operations in the Netherlands for a further five years. The Kansspelautoriteit has granted Holland Casino Online a five-year extension to its licence, which will take effect on 1 October 2026 and will allow the operator to remain active in the regulated Dutch market until at least 2031. 

Petra de Ruiter, Chief Executive of Holland Casino, assured that the company would continue to prioritise “a safe and responsible online offering”, with player protection as its top priority.