The Netherlands Advises Against Refunds for Lost Gambling Funds
On November 28, Advocate General Lindenberg of the Supreme Court published an opinion recommending that players should not be refunded losses incurred with iGaming operators before the legalization of the sector in October 2021.
After the legalization of online gambling in the country, it became common for players to file claims seeking to recover losses from the period before licensing was introduced. Plaintiffs argued that agreements made with operators without a Dutch license were legally invalid.
Supreme Court and Advocate Lindenberg’s Position
According to the opinion, the law did indeed prohibit operators from operating without a license. However, the mere absence of a license, in the advocate’s view, did not render agreements between players and operators invalid. Therefore, claims for the refund of losses cannot be granted.
The document emphasizes that the prohibition targeted the operators’ activities, not the validity of agreements with players. This means financial claims for past periods cannot be automatically recognized.
Legal Basis of the Disputes
At the heart of the cases is the Gambling Act (Wok), which prohibits offering gambling services without a license. Before April 1, 2021, there was no legal framework regulating online gambling in the Netherlands. Only with the introduction of the Remote Gambling Act (Koa), which became part of Wok, did operators gain the ability to obtain licenses for online games from October 1, 2021.
Despite this, long before these dates, many players from the Netherlands participated in online gambling. After the licensing system was implemented, some players began taking legal action to recover losses, citing the lack of operator licenses in previous years.
The Role of Amsterdam and North Holland Courts
Courts across the country had previously issued conflicting rulings in similar cases. As a result, the Amsterdam and North Holland courts submitted so-called preliminary questions to the Supreme Court. These questions focused on two main issues: the validity of agreements made without a license, and the consequences if such agreements were deemed invalid.
The preliminary view of these courts suggested that the agreements could be considered void. However, they sought clarification from the Supreme Court before making a final decision.
Advocate’s Arguments Against Refunds
Legal Enforcement and Player Responsibility
After reviewing the law, its history, and application, the advocate concluded that Wok does not prohibit entering into the agreements themselves. The law only restricts providing services without a license. There were also no grounds to consider such agreements contrary to public order or morality.
The opinion also highlights that consumer protection can be achieved through other measures, such as damage compensation or contesting agreements in specific cases. These remedies are applied individually, not automatically to all agreements.
Additionally, online gambling was widespread long before licensing was introduced, and the legislative process to regulate remote gambling took decades. During this period, supervision repeatedly emphasized the individual responsibility of players for participating in gambling.
Implications for Players and Operators
Considering all circumstances, the conclusion is that claims for refunds from operators without a license cannot be granted on the basis of mistaken payments. This directly affects ongoing cases in courts as well as new claims filed after 2021.
The date for the Supreme Court’s final ruling has not yet been announced. The advocate’s opinion is advisory, and the court may choose to follow it or take a different position.
Status of the Advocate’s Opinion
The opinion was prepared by an advocate who is part of the Supreme Court’s prosecutor’s office. This body is independent and separate from the public prosecution service. Its role is to provide legal analysis of cases and prepare recommendations for the court.
As it stands, the official position is that online gambling agreements made without a license are considered valid, and refunds for losses incurred before October 2021 are not provided.