Judges ask Supreme Court for clarity on online gambling

Ron

• 30 Jan 2025 • Reading time: 3 minutes

Dutch judges want to know exactly what the situation is with lawsuits between gamblers and online casinos. Players are trying to get their lost money back.

This while the gambling companies say that their services were tolerated. The Supreme Court must now decide who is right.

Judges contradict each other

There have already been several lawsuits, but the verdicts vary considerably. In most cases, players got their money back. But in Zeeland-West-Brabant, a judge found that the government’s tolerance policy meant that casinos did not have to pay back any money.

This causes confusion. That is why the courts of Amsterdam and North Holland have submitted six questions to the Supreme Court.

Six important questions about online gambling

The judges want to know whether the agreements between players and online casinos were invalid before 2021. They also ask whether it matters whether a gambling company was on the grey list of the Gaming Authority. In addition, they want to know what the legal consequences are if a player reclaims money from a gambling company.

The preliminary questions

1. Did the Wok (Gaming Act) initially have the intention to affect the validity of legal acts that conflict with it?
2. Has the intention – after initially being present – ​​been lost, under the influence of social developments and/or in view of the enforcement policy of Ksa (Gaming Authority)? Should a distinction be made here between providers of games of chance that were on the ‘grey list’ of the Ksa and other providers?
3. Is a gambling agreement between a consumer residing in the Netherlands and a provider of games of chance on the internet that does not have a license within the meaning of the Wok a void agreement within the meaning of Article 3:40 BW?
4. Does it matter for the answer to question 3 whether the gambling provider met the priority criteria of Ksa?
5. If the answer to question 3 is affirmative, what legal consequences does that have? Is a claim for reimbursement of the loss suffered on the grounds of undue payment admissible?
6. Is it relevant to answering the above questions that a gambling provider, such as TSG, claims to limit its services to offering players an online opportunity to play against each other? And if so, does that have consequences for what a player can reclaim from the gambling provider as undue payment?

Gambling companies fight back

Big names such as Bwin and PokerStars are trying to influence the outcome. They wanted some questions to be adjusted or even deleted. But the courts did not listen to that.

Lawyer Benzi Loonstein, who is representing the players, is relieved that the judges are sticking to their guns.

Unibet is not allowed to interfere

Unibet tried to interfere in the case, but was turned down. The court found that the company had no direct interest and rejected their request.

As a result, the legal proceedings are limited to the players and the companies that are actually involved.

What does this mean for the future?

The Supreme Court’s decision could have major consequences. If it turns out that the agreements were invalid, many gambling companies will have to pay back their players.

This could cause a chain reaction and turn the gambling industry upside down. The verdict is expected later this year.