Dutch Supreme Court: pre-2021 online gambling contracts are not void (Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Status, Rulings and What It Means for Players

On July 3, 2026, the Hoge Raad, the Dutch Supreme Court, held that contracts between Dutch players and online gambling operators that had no Dutch license before October 1, 2021 are not void or voidable under article 3:40 of the Dutch Civil Code. The judgment, ECLI:NL:HR:2026:1159, answered a preliminary referral from two District Courts.

Claims based on nullity and undue payment therefore fail, while claims in tort and for a defect of consent remain open. No payout exists.

What this case is about

This is a judgment of the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, civil chamber, in cases 25/00202 and 25/00204, concerning PokerStars and bwin. A referral states the questions; only the court's answers decide anything.

The two cases the lower courts referred

The Rechtbank Amsterdam and the Rechtbank Noord-Holland referred preliminary questions under article 392 of the Code of Civil Procedure by interim judgments of January 22, 2025 (ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2025:369 and ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2025:485). One case is a player against TSG Interactive Gaming Europe Limited (PokerStars, Malta), claim USD 139,464.58, HA ZA 24-205.

The other is a player against Electraworks Europe Limited (bwin and partycasino, Malta), claim EUR 135,137, HA ZA 23-498. Both are refund claims, and both belong to the wider field of online casino refund litigation that we track.

Why the lower courts disagreed

Before the referral, Dutch courts had split: Rechtbank Overijssel and Rechtbank Noord-Nederland held contracts void and ordered repayment, while Rechtbank Zeeland-West-Brabant found a tolerance policy and refused repayment. The Overijssel rulings are dated April 17, 2024 (ECLI:NL:RBOVE:2024:2078 and 2079), Noord-Nederland May 22, 2024 (ECLI:NL:RBNNE:2024:1971) and Zeeland-West-Brabant May 29, 2024 (ECLI:NL:RBZWB:2024:3524).

The tolerance finding rested on the regulator's prioritization criteria. The first line of cases is described in Overijssel orders bwin and PokerStars to repay, where the court ordered both operators to repay on the basis of void contracts.

Who is covered

The ruling concerns players who lost money to an online operator without a Dutch license before October 1, 2021, the date the Remote Gambling Act came into force. There is no class and nothing to file. No court or administrator has opened a claims process, and a player cannot register for one.

Players with losses before October 1, 2021

A Dutch player who lost money on an unlicensed online site before October 1, 2021 could previously argue that the contract was void and ask for the losses back. After the ruling, that nullity argument fails.

The two plaintiffs in the referring courts are the test cases. Their cases go back to the referring courts for decision on the remaining routes. The ruling's subject is limited to contracts concluded before October 1, 2021.

Who the ruling does not touch

The ruling does not decide claims under German or Austrian law, and the Hoge Raad made no ruling on EU law. German and Austrian refund claims run on different legal bases.

For how those courts reach refunds, read why German courts order online casinos to refund losses. Nothing in the Dutch judgment changes that line.

Is there a payout?

No payout exists: this ruling is not a settlement, it closes the nullity route to repayment of pre-October 2021 losses, and the claims that remain, in tort and for a defect of consent, are individual and have no fund or formula. Nobody can say how much a successful tort claim would be worth.

The two claim values in the referring cases, USD 139,464.58 and EUR 135,137, are the amounts the players claimed, not amounts any court has awarded. They are no guide to what another player could expect.

What the ruling takes away

The Hoge Raad held that article 1(1)(a) of the Wet op de kansspelen (Wok, the Dutch Betting and Gaming Act) was never meant to affect the validity of contracts with an unlicensed operator, so the contracts are not void under article 3:40 of the Civil Code. That is paragraph 3.3.2 of the judgment.

In paragraph 3.5.3 the court held that the regulator's prioritization criteria make no difference. In paragraph 3.6.2 it found that the question on restitution for undue payment, onverschuldigde betaling, therefore needs no answer. The effect is that repayment on nullity and undue payment fails.

Two more answers close the argument. Paragraph 3.4.2 found that the question whether the purpose of the Wok was lost later needs no answer, and paragraph 3.7.3 held that it is irrelevant when an operator lets players play only against each other.

What remains: tort and defect of consent

The Hoge Raad left room for claims in tort, onrechtmatige daad, and for avoidance of a contract for a defect of consent, wilsgebrek, which depend on the facts of each case. It marked this with the words "dit laat onverlet" at the end of paragraph 3.5.2.

Earlier awards on the voided-contract basis, such as about EUR 200,000 against each of bwin and PokerStars in Overijssel, now rest on a rejected ground. Whether any appeal is pending is not confirmed in our record.

Payout figures normally depend on a fund, fees, a claim rate and caps, as our guide to class action payout per person shows; none of those exist here.

What happens next

The next steps are in the two referring courts, and no hearing date is in the record. The status is judgment, as of July 3, 2026. The Hoge Raad's own work on the preliminary questions is finished, and the practical decisions now move to first-instance courts.

The referring courts decide the two cases

The Rechtbank Amsterdam and the Rechtbank Noord-Holland now decide their cases with these answers, including whether the tort or defect-of-consent routes succeed on the facts. No date for either decision is in the record.

We do not predict the outcome. Our record contains no hearing date for either case and no judgment after July 3, 2026. A claim in tort depends on what each player was told and did, and the Hoge Raad did not decide any of that.

Pending collective claims

Collective claims bundled against operators, including a EUR 75 million claim against Unibet reported in October 2025, lost their nullity basis on July 3, 2026. The claim was reported as lodged by the organizer Dynamiet at Rechtbank Den Haag, and the same group announced a EUR 100 million claim against seven companies in January 2025.

Court filings, case numbers and hearing dates for these claims are not confirmed in our record. The page on Dutch pre-2021 online gambling mass claims tracks them.

Timeline

Six dated steps run from legalization to the ruling. The Overijssel and Noord-Nederland rulings of 2024 held contracts void, and the Hoge Raad's answer overtook them.

What the court has decided so far

The Hoge Raad's answers are final on the questions referred: the contracts are valid, but tort and defect-of-consent claims stay open. As of July 3, 2026 the status is judgment; the referring courts proceed.

The answers by paragraph

The operative answers sit in paragraphs 3.3.2, 3.4.2, 3.5.3, 3.6.2 and 3.7.3 of the judgment. The table follows the judgment's paragraph numbers, and we cite no question numbers.

What the Hoge Raad left open

The Hoge Raad did not rule on EU law, on tort or defect-of-consent claims, or on the facts of the two referring cases. Those matters stay with the referring courts.

The Advocate General's opinion of November 28, 2025 (ECLI:NL:PHR:2025:1302) is in the document list below. For the wider picture of Dutch courts, see gambling lawsuits in the Netherlands.

Documents and sources

Every holding on this page comes from the judgment's text on rechtspraak.nl and the Hoge Raad's own release, listed here. Law-firm notes are supporting only.

• The judgment, ECLI:NL:HR:2026:1159, July 3, 2026, rechtspraak.nl (primary, court).
• Hoge Raad news release, hogeraad.nl, July 2026 (primary).
• Advocate General opinion, ECLI:NL:PHR:2025:1302, November 28, 2025 (primary).
• Referring judgments ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2025:369 and ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2025:485, January 22, 2025 (primary).
• Blenheim law-firm note, July 6, 2026 (supporting).
• Mamot law-firm note (supporting).

Related cases

Related cases show the lower-court judgments the Hoge Raad overturned in principle and the refund fights in other countries.

The Dutch refund judgments that preceded the ruling

Five Dutch rulings between 2023 and 2024 built the line the Hoge Raad has now ended on nullity.

• bwin and PokerStars repayment judgments: Overijssel, April 17, 2024.
• Unibet EUR 93,000 default refund judgment: default judgments of 2023, before Unibet defended.
• Largest Dutch refund judgment: Unibet EUR 676,224.76: reported figure; the judgment text has not been retrieved.
• Breda court: bwin player loses: tolerance policy, May 29, 2024.
• Amsterdam court refers Unibet refund question: a separate first-instance referral order of June 12, 2024 in a Unibet case, not one of the two January 22, 2025 interim judgments in cases 25/00202 and 25/00204; whether its questions were answered together with those cases is not confirmed in the court record.

Refund litigation elsewhere

Germany and Austria run their refund wave on different law, and Malta resists enforcement of the Austrian judgments. The German and Austrian refund rulings and Malta Bill 55 (Article 56A Gaming Act) explain each side.

Questions people ask

Did the Dutch Supreme Court say online gambling contracts are void?

No; on July 3, 2026 the Hoge Raad held that contracts with an unlicensed online operator before October 1, 2021 are not void or voidable under article 3:40 of the Civil Code.

Can I still get back my pre-2021 gambling losses in the Netherlands?

Only through claims in tort or for a defect of consent that depend on the facts of each case, and no fund exists; our guide on can you get gambling losses back covers what courts have ordered in each country.

Does this ruling affect German or Austrian refund claims?

No; the ruling does not decide German or Austrian claims and does not rule on EU law. The German side is explained in our page on refund claims in Germany.

What happens to the Dutch mass claims against operators?

Collective claims bundled against operators lost their nullity basis; court filings and hearing dates are not in our record.

What happens to the refund judgments already granted?

Earlier judgments that rested on nullity, such as those of the Rechtbank Overijssel in 2024, rest on a ground the Hoge Raad has rejected; whether any appeal is pending is not confirmed in our record.

Is the ruling final?

The Hoge Raad's answers on the referred questions are given; the two referring courts decide the cases.