Netherlands: the courts protect operators 

The Dutch Supreme Court has ruled that contracts entered into before 1 October 2021 between players and online gambling operators who did not at the time hold a Dutch licence cannot be annulled on that ground alone. This decision closes the main avenue used by former customers to claim reimbursement of their losses. 

A verdict that reduces Unibet’s financial risk 

The ruling handed down on 3 July 2026 comes as a major relief for Unibet and its parent company, FDJ United. The brand is facing a class action claim for €75 million, brought in October 2025 by the claims organisation Dynamiet, relating to lost interest and stakes incurred by 2,500 former Unibet customers. Their central argument rested on the operator’s lack of a Dutch licence at the time the games and bets were offered. 

However, the Supreme Court has now undermined this line of reasoning. It considers that agreements entered into between players and operators prior to the 2021 reform are not automatically invalid. The lack of a licence is therefore not, in itself, sufficient to oblige a company to refund the sums lost. 

This ruling does not necessarily bring all individual proceedings to an end, but it deprives claimants of their main legal basis. To obtain a cancellation or compensation, former players will now have to rely on specific circumstances, such as an error that influenced their consent or unlawful conduct that could give rise to the operator’s liability. 

Previous contracts are not declared void 

Prior to 1 October 2021, the Netherlands did not yet have a regulated market open to online gambling operators. The Remote Gambling Act subsequently established a framework allowing authorised companies to legally offer their services to Dutch players. 

However, international companies were already operating in the country prior to this liberalisation. They were operating in a period of legal uncertainty, without a national licence, whilst many consumers were using their websites. 

Several former players argued that contracts entered into during this period should be regarded as non-existent or void. In their view, a company without a licence could not validly accept their bets. They therefore sought reimbursement of losses incurred before the new regime came into force. 

The Supreme Court rejected this interpretation. After examining the wording and structure of the Dutch Betting and Gaming Act 1964, it concluded that the text did not provide for the automatic invalidity of transactions carried out with an unauthorised operator. Bets placed and casino games played before October 2021 therefore remain legally valid. The ruling also states that these agreements cannot be regarded as contrary to public policy solely on the grounds that the operator did not hold a Dutch licence. 

Two courts were awaiting the Supreme Court’s ruling 

The case came before the Supreme Court in the form of preliminary questions referred by the Amsterdam District Court and the District Court of North Holland. In the cases under consideration, former customers were seeking the annulment of their contracts and reimbursement of their losses. They argued that the operators had offered their services without authorisation under the legal regime in force at the time. 

The courts hearing the cases required a clear interpretation of national legislation before they could proceed with their examination of these claims. The Supreme Court’s ruling now sets out a guideline that lower courts will need to take into account in similar disputes. 

This clarification is likely to have an impact on many proceedings brought against brands operating in the Netherlands prior to the reform. It significantly reduces the possibility of obtaining full compensation for losses by relying solely on the regulatory illegality of the offer. 

Bwin, 888 and several other brands are also affected 

Several operators were active on the Dutch market during the period leading up to the official launch. 

These included Bwin, PartyCasino and PartyPoker – brands linked to the Entain group – as well as 888 and Unibet. Unibet was then part of the Kindred group, which was subsequently taken over by FDJ United. 

For several years, these companies have faced claims for refunds from former customers. The Supreme Court’s ruling is expected to strengthen their defence, as it invalidates the notion that any contract entered into prior to 2021 is automatically void. 

FDJ United stated that the ruling provided “important legal clarification for all parties concerned.” A spokesperson for the group explained that “the central legal argument put forward by the claimants regarding gambling contracts entered into between players and operators prior to the regulation of the Dutch market on 1 October 2021 cannot be upheld.” 

Unibet had already contested Dynamiet’s claim for 75 million euros. In particular, the company highlighted its discussions with the Dutch government and its intention to apply for a licence as soon as the final rules for the new market were known. 

FDJ United also links this case to the terms of its acquisition of Kindred. In January 2024, FDJ had made an all-cash offer of €2.6 billion. The group finalised the acquisition of a controlling stake on 11 October 2024. According to FDJ United, Kindred’s operations in markets without local regulation were divested following this takeover, along with the associated financial liabilities. This transaction specifically concerned activities carried out in the Netherlands prior to the market’s legal opening in 2021. 

A significant victory, but not the end of the constraints 

For Unibet, Bwin, 888 and the other operators concerned, the judgement of 3 July represents a major victory. It closes the main avenue through which former players could collectively claim reimbursement for losses incurred prior to October 2021. 

However, claims based on an error, a specific breach or an unlawful act remain possible. Each player’s situation may therefore still be examined on a case-by-case basis.