Gambling Lawsuits in the Netherlands: Every Case, Court and Settlement

10 gambling court cases from the Netherlands are on record as of 14 November 2026, and the one that matters most to players is the Hoge Raad's judgment of 3 July 2026 (ECLI:NL:HR:2026:1159) that contracts with online operators who lacked a Dutch license before 1 October 2021 are neither void nor voidable.

Players who search for gokverlies terugvorderen, reclaiming gambling losses, now find the nullity route closed.

Can any of these judgments be turned into a refund today? No: none comes with a fund or a claim form.

The record also holds the fines the Kansspelautoriteit (KSA, the Dutch gambling regulator) imposed and defended before the Raad van State, the FIFA loot box annulment, the Polymarket penalty, the Staatsloterij advertising case and the tax rulings.

Dates and ECLI numbers from rechtspraak.nl; the Unibet award reported by press is not in the graphic because the judgment was not located; checked 14 November 2026.

Can players recover losses in the Netherlands? What the courts have decided

No Dutch gambling case has produced a settlement fund, a claim form or an administrator; the Hoge Raad closed the nullity route to refunds on 3 July 2026, and the repayment orders Dutch courts issued in 2023 and 2024 now rest on a basis the Supreme Court rejected; whether they were appealed is not confirmed in the court record.

These are court decisions, not payouts. The national comparison sits on gambling lawsuits by country, where each record is laid out the same way.

The Hoge Raad's answer of 3 July 2026: pre-2021 contracts are not void

Answering preliminary questions from Rechtbank Amsterdam (a claim of USD 139,464.58 against TSG Interactive Gaming Europe Ltd, PokerStars) and Rechtbank Noord-Holland (EUR 135,137 against Electraworks Europe Ltd, bwin), the Hoge Raad held on 3 July 2026 in cases 25/00202 and 25/00204 that the Wok never had the purpose of affecting the validity of contracts concluded in breach of art. 1(1)(a) (para 3.3.2), that such contracts are neither void nor voidable under art. 3:40 BW and the KSA's prioritization criteria change nothing (para 3.5.3), and that it is irrelevant that an operator only lets players play against each other (para 3.7.3).

The judgment does not rule on EU law. What remains is voidability for a defect of consent (wilsgebrek) and a claim in tort (onrechtmatige daad), both decided on the facts of each case after the Advocate General's advice of 28 November 2025 (ECLI:NL:PHR:2025:1302). The wider picture is in online casino refund litigation: what the courts have decided.

The first-instance refund awards and what the ruling does to them

Before the referral, Rechtbank Overijssel had ordered PokerStars' operator to pay USD 230,705.22 and bwin's operator EUR 187,621.96 on 17 April 2024 (ECLI:NL:RBOVE:2024:2078 and 2079), Rechtbank Noord-Nederland had confirmed a EUR 93,210.71 award against Unibet's operator Trannel on 22 May 2024 (ECLI:NL:RBNNE:2024:1971), and Rechtbank Zeeland-West-Brabant had dismissed a EUR 94,479.65 claim against bwin on 29 May 2024 (ECLI:NL:RBZWB:2024:3524), the split that produced the preliminary questions.

The table lists each ruling and its position after 3 July 2026.

The awards were decided before the Hoge Raad answered, and the nullity ground they used is the one it has now rejected. A player weighing a claim can compare the position elsewhere in can you get gambling losses back, country by country.

Duty of care against licensed and land-based casinos: what has and has not worked

Against land-based and licensed operators the Dutch courts have found a breach of the duty of care twice and awarded little: Rechtbank Utrecht held Holland Casino liable on 17 August 2011 for readmitting a player who had asked for an indefinite ban (ECLI:NL:RBUTR:2011:BR6197, damages to be determined, none reported paid), and Rechtbank Oost-Brabant awarded EUR 5,000 of a claim that reached at least EUR 379,000 against Hotel Gaming B.V. on 18 January 2023 (ECLI:NL:RBOBR:2023:214) because the losses were not documented.

The 2026 rulings went the other way. Rechtbank Noord-Holland dismissed the Casino Sevens claim on 8 April 2026 (ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2026:3802) because the player had used a friend's ID to circumvent the CRUKS exclusion register, with costs of EUR 1,008 and EUR 432.

A EUR 42,000 claim against Casino777 was rejected in 2026, per press; the ECLI is not in the record.

Class actions and mass claims: WAMCA, the organizers and the Consumentenbond

The Netherlands has a collective-action statute (WAMCA, art. 3:305a BW), and the gambling record holds one decided collective case, Stichting Loterijverlies.nl against the Staatsloterij, where the Hoge Raad found the lottery's 2000 to 2008 advertising misleading on 30 January 2015 (ECLI:NL:HR:2015:178) but held on 15 July 2022 (ECLI:NL:HR:2022:1109) that the finding creates no presumption that an individual subscriber would not have played.

The pre-2021 mass claims have no judgment. Loonstein Advocaten reported more than 20,000 sign-ups by September 2024, and Dynamiet reported about 5,000 claimants, with EUR 75,000,000 claimed against Unibet at Rechtbank Den Haag as reported on 13 October 2025; these are organizer figures, not court-verified, and filings and dates are not confirmed in the court record.

The Hoge Raad's ruling removed their nullity basis. The stages of such a claim are explained in how a gambling class action works, step by step.

A complaint states one side's allegations, only the court's orders decide anything. On 21 November 2025 the Consumentenbond and a claim foundation demanded compensation from six licensed operators (Hillside, BetCity, Holland Casino, JOI Gaming, Trannel and Nederlandse Loterij) for misleading players and encouraging excessive gambling. It is a demand before any suit; no writ is on record.

Regulator and state cases in court

The Raad van State has upheld nearly every Kansspelautoriteit fine that reached it, cutting amounts only for inadequate reasoning (2021) or undue delay (2025), and annulled only the one penalty that was not about unlicensed gambling at all, the FIFA loot box order.

Every KSA fine the Raad van State confirmed or cut (table)

The table lists every KSA sanction that reached a court, with each court's answer and the amount left standing.

Loot boxes, Polymarket and publication fights

The Raad van State reversed the only Dutch loot box penalty on 9 March 2022: obtaining and opening FIFA Ultimate Team packs is a chance element inside a skill game, not a stand-alone game of chance, so the KSA had no power to order Electronic Arts to change them under a penalty of EUR 250,000 per week (maximum EUR 5,000,000 per entity), and no penalty was paid.

Polymarket's operator received a KSA order on 20 January 2026 to stop offering event contracts to Dutch users, under a penalty of EUR 420,000 per week up to EUR 840,000.

It geo-blocked the Netherlands on 18 February 2026, one day late, and EUR 420,000 was forfeited; the objection was rejected on 23 June 2026, and a court challenge in The Hague was reported in October 2026, with no case number found.

Gammix's fine of about EUR 19.6 million came with EUR 4.4 million in forfeited penalties; the KSA published its objection decision on 25 November 2025, and a court appeal is not confirmed.

The publication fights of JOI Gaming and bet365 went the KSA's way. The tracker for Polymarket in Europe: ANJ block, KSA penalty, Spanish sanctions follows the open items.

The State defended: the total ban, Betfair, Ladbrokes and the EGBA state-aid case

Every challenge to the Dutch licensing system itself has failed: the Raad van State held on 23 March 2011 that the single-license system complied with EU law while the minister should have let Betfair compete for the licenses (ECLI:NL:RVS:2011:BP8768, after CJEU C-203/08), the Hoge Raad rejected Ladbrokes' appeal against De Lotto's blocking injunction on 24 February 2012 (ECLI:NL:HR:2012:BT6689, after C-258/08), and Gerechtshof Den Haag held on 10 March 2026 (ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2026:399) that the 2007 to 2014 total online ban was a justified and proportionate restriction, rejecting the state-liability claims of fourteen people connected to Maltese operators.

The EGBA state-aid case ended the same way for the Netherlands in EU court: the General Court annulled the Commission's decision on the lottery licenses on 15 November 2023 (T-167/21) and the Court of Justice dismissed the Dutch appeal on 16 October 2025 (C-59/24 P).

The tax cases also went the State's way: Hof Den Haag upheld gaming-machine tax assessments on 18 June 2026, and the Hoge Raad upheld EUR 1,015,492 of tax on a EUR 3,501,699.60 jackpot on 15 December 2017. See licensing and administrative court cases: operators against regulators and states.

Supreme and appellate court rulings: the timeline

3 Dutch gambling cases ended at the Hoge Raad and 3 at the Raad van State or a Gerechtshof; the list gives each with its date and ECLI, newest first.

• 8 July 2026, Raad van State, ECLI:NL:RVS:2026:3947: EUR 400,000 advertising fine upheld (GL-NL-0016)
• 3 July 2026, Hoge Raad, ECLI:NL:HR:2026:1159: pre-2021 contracts not void or voidable (GL-NL-0001)
• 18 June 2026, Hof Den Haag, ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2026:2231 and 2232: gaming-machine tax upheld (GL-NL-0028)
• 22 April 2026, Raad van State, ECLI:NL:RVS:2026:2302: EUR 12,640,000 fine confirmed (GL-NL-0014)
• 18 March 2026, Raad van State, ECLI:NL:RVS:2026:1532: JOI Gaming fine and publication upheld (GL-NL-0017)
• 10 March 2026, Hof Den Haag, ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2026:399: total online ban justified (GL-NL-0027)
• 26 November 2025, Raad van State, ECLI:NL:RVS:2025:5728: fine cut to EUR 497,500 (GL-NL-0013)
• 16 October 2025, Court of Justice, C-59/24 P: Dutch state-aid appeal dismissed (GL-EU-0212)
• 15 July 2022, Hoge Raad, ECLI:NL:HR:2022:1109: no presumption of causation, Staatsloterij (GL-NL-0024)
• 29 June 2022, Raad van State, ECLI:NL:RVS:2022:1833: EUR 300,000 fine upheld (GL-NL-0012)
• 9 March 2022, Raad van State, ECLI:NL:RVS:2022:690: loot box penalty annulled (GL-NL-0009)
• 17 February 2021, Raad van State, ECLI:NL:RVS:2021:315: two fines cut to EUR 150,000 each (GL-NL-0011)
• 15 December 2017, Hoge Raad, ECLI:NL:HR:2017:3130: gambling tax on a German lotto jackpot upheld (GL-NL-0029)
• 30 January 2015, Hoge Raad, ECLI:NL:HR:2015:178: Staatsloterij advertising misleading (GL-NL-0024)
• 24 February 2012, Hoge Raad, ECLI:NL:HR:2012:BT6689: De Lotto blocking injunction upheld (GL-NL-0026)
• 23 March 2011, Raad van State, ECLI:NL:RVS:2011:BP8768: Betfair should have been allowed to compete (GL-NL-0025)
• 3 June 2010, Court of Justice, C-203/08 and C-258/08: the two Dutch references answered (GL-EU-0205, GL-EU-0206)

First-instance refund outcomes: the statistics

Of the published first-instance refund rulings before 3 July 2026, Rechtbank Overijssel ordered repayment twice (17 April 2024) and Noord-Nederland once (22 May 2024), press reports a further Unibet award, Zeeland-West-Brabant dismissed one claim (29 May 2024), and Amsterdam and Noord-Holland referred the question to the Hoge Raad (12 June 2024, then 22 January 2025), a split recounted in the Amsterdam referral judgment itself.

The table sets the direction of those rulings beside the organizers' claimant figures.

For the comparison, the German first-instance record is on gambling lawsuits in Germany.

Cases by category

The 10 cases split into 2 regulator appeals, 2 refund cases, 2 duty-of-care suits and single-digit counts in seven further categories.

Courts, databases and how to read a Dutch citation (ECLI)

Every Dutch judgment on this page is published on rechtspraak.nl under its ECLI number, free and without registration, and the Raad van State also publishes its decisions under the case number in the form 202406233/1/A3.

An ECLI reads left to right: ECLI:NL:HR:2026:1159 means the Netherlands, the Hoge Raad, the year, a serial number. Court codes include HR (Hoge Raad), RVS (Raad van State), GHDHA (Gerechtshof Den Haag), RBOVE (Rechtbank Overijssel) and RBDHA (Rechtbank Den Haag).

The KSA publishes its sanction and publication decisions on kansspelautoriteit.nl under a reference number (kenmerk), and administrative judgments anonymize the parties.

Cases decided by the EU courts on Dutch questions sit on a separate page, gambling lawsuits in the European Union (CJEU), which explains the C-number format. The omgevingsweb.nl pages mirror primary texts and are named as mirrors where used.

Questions people ask

Can I still get my pre-2021 online casino losses back?

Not on the basis that the operator was unlicensed: the Hoge Raad closed that route on 3 July 2026, so a claim now needs individual proof of a tort (for example ignoring obvious signs of addiction) or a defect of consent, and no mass claim has a judgment yet. The general answer for every country is on can you get gambling losses back.

When did the Hoge Raad rule on gambling losses, and what did it decide?

On 3 July 2026 (ECLI:NL:HR:2026:1159, cases 25/00202 and 25/00204), after the Advocate General's advice of 28 November 2025: contracts with operators that lacked a Dutch license before 1 October 2021 are not void or voidable under art. 3:40 BW, repayment claims based on nullity and undue payment fail, and tort or defect-of-consent claims remain to be decided case by case by the referring courts.

Are FIFA loot boxes gambling in the Netherlands?

No, since the Raad van State's judgment of 9 March 2022 (ECLI:NL:RVS:2022:690): packs are a chance element within a skill game, about 92 percent of players use them inside the game, and the KSA's weekly penalty order against Electronic Arts was annulled without any payment. The wider rulings are collected in are loot boxes gambling: what courts and regulators have ruled.

Is Polymarket banned in the Netherlands?

The KSA ordered Polymarket's operator Adventure One QSS Inc. on 20 January 2026 to stop offering event contracts to Dutch users under a penalty of EUR 420,000 per week (maximum EUR 840,000); Polymarket geo-blocked the Netherlands on 18 February 2026, EUR 420,000 was forfeited, the objection was rejected on 23 June 2026 and a court challenge in The Hague was reported in October 2026 (no case number or hearing date found). The open items are tracked on the Polymarket in Europe tracker.

What this page does not cover

What the Wok permits, how many accounts a player may hold and whether a police officer may gamble are statutory and employment questions this page does not answer; the court cases that tested the Wok are above.

Help with stopping online gambling is on gambling helplines by country, shown in the box at the foot of this page.

Belgian loot box cases and the recognition of Curaçao licenses are covered elsewhere; Belgium has its own page, gambling lawsuits in Belgium.

German and Austrian refund law follows a different route from the Dutch one and is explained in why German courts order online casinos to refund losses.

Sources and method

Of the 10 cases on this page, 10 carry a status read directly from the judgment on rechtspraak.nl or the KSA decision; the rest rest on press and organizer statements and are flagged in the table.

Primary sources are data.rechtspraak.nl by ECLI, the raadvanstate.nl case pages, the kansspelautoriteit.nl sanction and publication decisions by kenmerk, curia press releases, the parliamentary paper kst-32264-25 on officielebekendmakingen.nl and the Consumentenbond release of 21 November 2025.

Blenheim, Mamo TCV, NOS, nltimes, Hart van Nederland, CasinoBeats and Gambling Insider are secondary sources and never the only basis for a status. GamblingLawsuits.org is a non-profit public record: filing a claim is free, we are not a law firm and not a claims administrator, and we link no operator.

The checks behind each status are described on our methodology page.

Errors are fixed and logged on the corrections page.