Dutch court rejects blanket gambling refund claims

• The Hoge Raad rules pre-2021 gambling contracts are not automatically void.
• Cases against TSG Interactive (PokerStars) and ElectraWorks Europe (PartyCasino) triggered the referral.
• Judges leave room for claims based on mistake or unlawful conduct.

The Dutch Supreme Court (Hoge Raad) ruled on 3 July 2026 that gambling contracts struck with unlicensed operators before the Netherlands regulated its online market in October 2021 are not automatically void under Dutch law.

The judgment answered questions referred by the District Courts of Amsterdam and Noord-Holland, narrowing rather than eliminating players’ routes to compensation.

Nullity route closed

Before the Kansspelen op afstand Act took effect on 1 October 2021, many operators served Dutch customers under licences issued elsewhere in Europe, mainly Malta. Once the Netherlands introduced its own online licensing regime through the Netherlands Gambling Authority, thousands of players who had gambled during the earlier period began suing to recover their losses, arguing the missing Dutch licence made their contracts invalid.

Two referred disputes prompted Friday’s ruling. The Amsterdam case named TSG Interactive Gaming Europe, the Flutter Entertainment subsidiary behind PokerStars, as defendant. The Noord-Holland case involved ElectraWorks Europe, the Entain-owned operator of PartyCasino.

Lower Dutch courts had reached conflicting verdicts, mostly in players’ favour, on whether such agreements were void under Article 3:40 of the Dutch Civil Code, prompting the referral to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court held that neither the text nor the legislative history of the Gambling Act shows lawmakers intended unlicensed agreements to be void. Judges also found that the mere absence of a licence does not make a contract contrary to public order or good morals. The ruling stated:

“It cannot be inferred from the text and structure of the Gambling Act that the Gambling Act is intended to affect the validity of agreements concluded with providers of games of chance who do not hold the required licence for that purpose.”

Judges added that the law provides for administrative and criminal sanctions rather than automatic civil invalidity. Crucially, the ruling does not close every avenue for players. Dutch courts can still consider claims grounded in defects of consent, such as mistake, or in unlawful conduct by an operator, meaning individual cases may still succeed on narrower grounds.

Operators welcome ruling

Entain welcomed the outcome on behalf of its Bwin, PartyCasino and PartyPoker brands, framing the decision as confirmation that claims based purely on contractual invalidity no longer stand. An Entain spokesperson said:

“Bwin, PartyCasino and PartyPoker welcome the Supreme Court’s ruling. It confirms the position they have consistently maintained, which is that gambling agreements entered into before 1 October 2021 are valid, and that any historic gambling losses incurred cannot be recovered on the basis that those agreements were void. In light of the Court’s decision, any attempt to pursue such claims, whether individually or collectively, is no longer tenable.”

Courts in Amsterdam and Noord-Holland will now apply the Supreme Court’s reasoning to the underlying cases, and dozens of similar disputes against former grey market brands remain pending elsewhere in the Netherlands.

The Netherlands has also been grappling with a persistent black market, with regulatory estimates suggesting unauthorised platforms still account for close to half of online gambling activity.

Split with Europe

The judgment sets the Netherlands apart from Austria, whose Supreme Court ruled in 2024 that contracts with unlicensed operators are entirely void, requiring players and operators to reverse both losses and any winnings.

Germany has arrived at a similar outcome through a different legal route. Courts including the Higher Regional Court of Cologne have repeatedly ordered unlicensed operators such to repay stakes, a stance reinforced by the Court of Justice of the European Union’s April ruling against Malta-licensed operator Lottoland.

That divergence has already spilled into cross-border disputes. Malta’s Bill 55, which shields Malta-licensed operators from foreign refund judgments, has become a flashpoint. A Maltese court recently blocked enforcement of an Austrian ruling against a locally licensed operator.

The Dutch outcome may ease pressure on operators with historic Maltese licences, but arrives as the Dutch government pursues fresh curbs on advertising and bonuses aimed at strengthening the licensed market’s standing.

For claimant law firms, the ruling narrows the legal path forward without closing it. The next round of Dutch litigation looks set to turn on the specifics of individual contracts, such as mistake or unlawful conduct, rather than a blanket theory of invalidity.