Raad van State: KSA prioritisation criteria were no tolerance policy: Allegations, Court Orders and Status

What this case is about

The Raad van State, Afdeling bestuursrechtspraak, decided case 202100461/1/A3 on 29 June 2022 (ECLI:NL:RVS:2022:1833). An anonymised operator of two gambling websites appealed against a fine from the Dutch gambling regulator, the Kansspelautoriteit (KSA). It is one of the Regulators and Attorneys General in Court cases.

The KSA had imposed a EUR 300,000 fine on 31 July 2018 for offering gambling without a licence, under article 1(1)(a) of the Wok. The operator argued legal certainty, equal treatment, article 6 ECHR and publication under the Wob.

Who is covered

The appellant is an unlicensed operator and the respondent is the KSA. No class and no player is a party.

The reasoning matters to every operator that offered games to Dutch players while relying on the KSA's enforcement priorities. The regulator's other cases are listed under Kansspelautoriteit Lawsuits.

Is there a payout?

No payout exists in this case for players. The money in the record is a EUR 300,000 regulatory fine, which the court upheld. A fine is a penalty imposed on the operator, not damages for players.

The record shows no fund and no claim process.

What the court decided

The Raad van State confirmed the judgment of the Rechtbank Den Haag of 10 December 2020 (case 19/1920). It held that the KSA's prioritisation policy was not a tolerance policy (gedoogbeleid). Operators had two months to adapt to the tightened criteria.

The court found the fine proportionate and saw no need to put questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union. It also permitted publication of the decision. As of 14 November 2026 the record shows no later step in this case.

Why it matters

The finding matters for refund litigation, where operators invoked the same gedoogbeleid argument. A top administrative court has said that the KSA's prioritisation criteria did not amount to tolerating unlicensed offers.

For the later civil-law position, see the related Hoge Raad decision below. For the wider group of enforcement actions, see Regulators and Attorneys General in Court.

Questions people ask

Did the KSA tolerate unlicensed operators?

Not as a policy. The Raad van State held that the prioritisation criteria were not a tolerance policy and that operators had two months to adapt to the tightened criteria.

Was the EUR 300,000 fine reduced?

No. The Raad van State upheld the fine of 31 July 2018 and found it proportionate.

Can players claim money back because of this ruling?

No. The case concerns a regulatory fine against an operator. It creates no fund or claim process for players.

Related cases

• Hoge Raad 3 juli 2026, ECLI:NL:HR:2026:1159 (prejudiciële vragen, zaken 25/00202 en 25/00204, PokerStars en bwin): the Dutch Supreme Court on refund claims against online operators.