Dutch Supreme Court Upholds Pre-2021 Gambling Contracts

Dutch Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Pre-2021 Online Gambling Contracts – Operators Avoid Repayment Claims

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court of the Netherlands ruled that online gambling contracts concluded before 1 October 2021 cannot be declared void.
• Former customers cannot reclaim losses on the basis that operators were unlicensed under the former WOK Act 1964.
• The ruling follows cases referred by the District Courts of Amsterdam and North Holland.
• Operators including brands now owned by Entain and FDJ United were active in the market before the KOA Act took effect.
• The decision comes amid ongoing regulatory pressure and concerns about offshore market activity in the Netherlands.

Supreme Court Clarifies Legal Status of Pre-KOA Gambling Agreements

The Supreme Court of the Netherlands has ruled that gambling agreements between online operators and Dutch customers prior to 1 October 2021 remain legally valid. The date marks the entry into force of the Remote Gambling Act, known as the KOA Act, which formally regulated the Dutch online gambling market.

The court examined whether contracts concluded under the earlier Betting and Gaming Act of 1964, referred to as the WOK Act, could be declared void because the operators involved did not hold a Dutch licence at the time. It concluded that neither the wording nor the structure of the WOK Act supports the interpretation that such agreements were automatically invalid.

The term contracts refers to individual gambling transactions, including sports bets and online casino play, entered into before the regulatory framework changed in 2021. As a result of the ruling, former customers cannot demand repayment of historical gambling losses solely on the basis that the operator was unlicensed under the previous regime.

Background: Disputes Over Loss Recovery Before Market Regulation

The decision follows two cases referred to the Supreme Court by the District Court of Amsterdam and the District Court of North Holland. In both proceedings, former customers argued that their agreements with online operators should be voided because those operators were not licensed in the Netherlands under the WOK Act. They sought to recover gambling losses incurred during that period.

Before the KOA Act came into effect, several international operators were active in the Dutch market. Among them were Bwin, PartyCasino and PartyPoker, brands operated by Entain, as well as the 888 group of brands prior to the creation of evoke. Unibet, at the time owned by Kindred Group and now part of FDJ United, also offered services to Dutch customers.

Some of these companies later secured licences under the KOA regime and remain active in the regulated market. Unibet continues to operate as a sportsbook under FDJ United, while Entain brands are active and the group acquired Dutch operator BetCity in 2022.

In a statement cited by SBC News, an Entain spokesperson said that Bwin, PartyCasino and PartyPoker welcomed the ruling. According to the statement, the companies have consistently maintained that gambling agreements concluded before 1 October 2021 were valid and that historical losses could not be recovered on the basis that the agreements were void.

Implications for Ongoing Consumer Claims

The ruling has broader relevance for pending legal disputes. FDJ United and its Unibet brand are currently facing a consumer claim of 75 million euros brought by the public claims organisation Dynamiet. The case was filed in October 2025 and represents 2,500 former Unibet customers who allege market abuses and seek compensation for losses.

Unibet has rejected the allegations. The company has stated that it complied with Dutch gambling laws applicable at the time and maintained communication with the Dutch government about pursuing a licence once the KOA framework was finalised.

The operator also noted that its entry into the regulated market was delayed by the Dutch Gambling Authority, Kansspelautoriteit, which imposed an eight month cooling off period in 2021. The Supreme Court decision on the validity of pre-KOA contracts may influence how courts assess similar recovery claims, although each case is handled individually.

In 2019, during the final stages of drafting the KOA Act, the Dutch House of Representatives decided not to impose retrospective tax liabilities on operators. That political decision highlighted divisions among ministers and parliamentary blocs over how to address activity that took place before formal regulation.

Regulatory Pressure Continues After Market Opening

Although the ruling represents legal clarity for operators regarding past transactions, the broader regulatory environment in the Netherlands remains restrictive.

After the KOA Act took effect in October 2021, licensed operators were permitted to advertise. This led to a significant increase in gambling marketing, which some politicians described as excessive. In response, the government introduced successive advertising restrictions.

In 2022, the use of role models in gambling advertisements was banned. From 1 July 2023, advertising on television, radio, social media, print media and in public spaces was prohibited. A further ban on sports sponsorship came into force on 1 July 2025.

Last month, the Dutch government announced a new package of legislative reforms that aims to eliminate most remaining advertising opportunities for gambling operators.

At the same time, policymakers and industry stakeholders continue to express concern about offshore operators targeting Dutch consumers without a local licence. Estimates cited by the trade body VNLOK, the Dutch Gambling Authority and the Dutch lottery suggest that more than 25 percent of gambling activity in the Netherlands could take place on the black market.

The Supreme Court stated that agreements between customers and unlicensed operators were not contrary to public order or public morality under the WOK Act. That interpretation may complicate the narrative that unlicensed activity was inherently unlawful, at a time when authorities are attempting to channel players toward the regulated market.

Our Assessment

The Supreme Court ruling establishes that gambling transactions concluded before the KOA Act entered into force remain legally valid and cannot be annulled solely due to the absence of a Dutch licence under the former WOK Act. This limits the scope for recovery claims related to pre-2021 losses and provides clarity for operators that were active during the earlier regulatory framework. At the same time, the decision comes amid ongoing litigation, tightened advertising rules and continued efforts by Dutch authorities to address offshore gambling activity.