Polymarket challenges Dutch ban: what does it mean for Belgium?
•
8 Oct 2026 •
Reading time: 5 minutes
Polymarket is not accepting the Dutch ban without a fight. The US prediction market platform has taken its case to the District Court of The Hague, disputing that its offering falls under gambling legislation. According to the company, users trade financial contracts. The Kansspelautoriteit (Ksa) considers it illegal gambling. For Belgian players, the court case changes nothing for the time being: Polymarket does not hold the required gambling licence in Belgium.
According to reporting by CasinoNieuws, Polymarket confirmed the court action to the Financieele Dagblad. The proceedings follow the rejection of an objection against the Dutch enforcement measures. This moves a fundamental debate into the courtroom: does making a contract on a future event tradable turn a bet into a financial product?
A block and a €420,000 penalty
On 20 January 2026, the Ksa imposed an order subject to periodic penalty payments on Adventure One QSS Inc., the company behind Polymarket. The decision was made public on 17 February. Polymarket was required to stop offering illegal gambling in the Netherlands and keep it stopped. Failure to comply carried a penalty of €420,000 per week, up to a maximum of €840,000.
The platform eventually blocked access for Dutch users, but according to the regulator, it did so too late. A follow-up check on 18 February showed, according to the Ksa, that the violation had not yet ended. As a result, the company incurred a €420,000 penalty. A recovery decision followed on 19 May. Gambling Club previously explained why a one-day delay cost Polymarket a €420,000 penalty. A recovery decision does not, however, automatically mean that the amount has already been paid.
Polymarket calls its offering a financial product
On Polymarket, users can take positions on the outcomes of future events. These may involve elections, sports or economic developments. The contracts are tradable, and their prices change as market participants consider a particular outcome more or less likely. Users can therefore sell their position before the final outcome is known.
Polymarket compares this mechanism to financial futures contracts. According to the platform, its offering should therefore fall under financial supervision. That is the company’s position, not an established legal classification. The fact that a position can be traded does not in itself answer the question of which legal framework applies. That is precisely where Polymarket and the Ksa disagree.
The Dutch regulator maintains that it is illegal gambling
The Ksa argues that users on Polymarket are participating in games of chance. During its investigation, a regulator placed, among other things, a one-dollar bet from the Netherlands in November 2025 on Rob Jetten becoming the next prime minister. The regulator concluded that the platform was offering gambling without the required Dutch licence.
Adventure One QSS Inc. filed an objection, but the Ksa rejected it on 23 June. The decisions and related documents are available in the Ksa’s official Polymarket case file. The Ksa also stressed that the types of bets involved may not be offered by Dutch licence holders either. According to that position, simply applying for a regular gambling licence would therefore not solve the issue with the existing offering.
Belgium already blocked Polymarket in January 2025
For Belgium, the debate is not new. Polymarket’s domain has been on the Belgian Gaming Commission’s blacklist since 30 January 2025. Gambling Club previously reported on Belgian action against Polymarket. The platform does not have the required authorisation to offer gambling in Belgium. The Belgian Gaming Commission had already taken firm action.
A Dutch court case concerns Dutch decisions and Dutch legislation. A ruling in Polymarket’s favour would therefore not automatically remove the platform from the Belgian blacklist. The court’s reasoning may become relevant to the broader debate, but that is different from obtaining a Belgian licence or changing Belgian enforcement policy.
The court case fits into a broader European strategy
Polymarket’s argument is not limited to The Hague. The company is also seeking to have its prediction contracts recognised as financial instruments at European level. Gambling Club described this approach in its analysis of Polymarket’s new strategy in Europe. Classification as a financial product could provide the platform with a different route to market access, but it would not guarantee authorisation.
Financial regulation comes with its own conditions and restrictions. Recognition as a financial product does not mean that every contract can then be freely sold to consumers. For Belgium, it would also be necessary to examine how any such classification would interact with national gambling rules. The idea that Polymarket simply needs a different label for its offering in order to return therefore oversimplifies the debate.
Belgian players should separate legal status from taxation
The combination of crypto, trading and predictions can create confusion. The fact that users buy and sell contracts does not prove that the platform is an authorised investment service in Belgium. Likewise, the question of how potential income is treated for tax purposes is separate from whether the offering may legally be used. Our explanation of Polymarket in Belgium as gambling, a crypto platform and a tax issue addresses these different questions.
For now, Polymarket has started legal proceedings; it has not won a court case. The announced move to court therefore gives Belgian users no new authorisation. The legal nature of the Dutch offering and the lawfulness of the contested decisions are at the heart of the case. Only after a ruling will it be possible to assess what significance the court’s reasoning may have outside the Netherlands.