Dutch Supreme Court Closes One Door On Gambling Player Claims – What’s Next For Malta-Based Operators?

On 3 July 2026, the Dutch Supreme Court (Hoge Raad) delivered its long-awaited judgment in the joined cases 25/00202and 25/00204, concerning claims brought by Dutch players against Malta-based gaming operators TSG Interactive Gaming Europe Limited (PokerStars) and Electraworks Europe Limited (bwin.party). While the judgment concerns the interpretation of Dutch law, its implications extend beyond the Netherlands and are of particular interest to Malta’s remote gaming sector.

The decision addresses one of the principal legal arguments relied upon by Dutch players seeking repayment of historical gambling losses from operators that accepted Dutch customers before the introduction of the regulated Dutch online gambling market on 1 October 2021.

Background

Before the Dutch Remote Gambling Act entered into force, several Malta-based operators offered online gambling services to Dutch players without holding a Dutch licence under the Dutch Betting and Gaming Act (Wet op de Kansspelen or Wok). Following the opening of the regulated market, a number of players instituted proceedings seeking restitution of gambling losses, arguing that the operators’ failure to hold a Dutch licence rendered the underlying gambling agreements void pursuant to Article 3:40 of the Dutch Civil Code.

Conflicting first-instance judgments prompted the District Courts of Amsterdam and North Holland to refer preliminary questions to the Dutch Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court’s Ruling

The principal issue before the Court was whether gambling agreements concluded with operators acting in breach of Article 1(1)(a) of the Wok are automatically void or voidable under Article 3:40 of the Dutch Civil Code.

The Supreme Court answered this question in the negative.

The Court held that although offering online gambling without the requisite Dutch licence constitutes a breach of the Wok, neither the wording nor the legislative history of the legislation suggests that Parliament intended such agreements to be rendered void or voidable. Instead, the Wok provides for administrative and criminal sanctions, whilst remaining silent as to any civil law consequence affecting contractual validity.

The Court also rejected the argument that such agreements are contrary to public order or good morals under Article 3:40(1) of the Dutch Civil Code. In doing so, it noted that the Dutch gambling regime is based on the principle of regulating and channelling gambling rather than prohibiting it outright. Accordingly, the absence of a licence does not, in itself, render the gambling agreement invalid.

Importantly, however, the judgment does not prevent players from pursuing claims on other recognised legal grounds. The Supreme Court expressly acknowledged that actions based on, amongst others, tort or defects of consent remain available where the relevant legal requirements are satisfied.

Implications for Malta-Based Operators

Although the judgment concerns Dutch private law, it is particularly significant for Malta-based gaming operators, with both defendants being companies incorporated in Malta.

Most immediately, the decision removes one of the principal legal foundations upon which historic Dutch player claims were based. Going forward, claimants can no longer rely solely on the alleged invalidity of gambling agreements arising from the operator’s lack of a Dutch licence.

The judgment also has practical relevance when viewed alongside Article 56A of the Maltese Gaming Act (Chapter 583 of the Laws of Malta). Although the Dutch Supreme Court did not consider the Maltese legislative framework, its decision is likely to influence the litigation environment within which Article 56A operates.

Article 56A forms part of Malta’s public policy framework and, amongst other things, provides protection to MGA licence holders against certain actions and the recognition or enforcement of particular foreign judgments relating to authorised gaming activities.

That said, the judgment should not be interpreted as conclusively resolving the ongoing debate surrounding Article 56A. The provision remains the subject of infringement proceedings initiated by the European Commission and its compatibility with EU law continues to be scrutinised before the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Looking Ahead

Rather than bringing cross-border gambling litigation to an end, this Dutch Supreme Court’s judgment is likely to reshape it. The decision closes a significant avenue through which players sought repayment of historic gambling losses, whilst still possibly leaving open other potential causes of action.

For Malta-based gaming operators, the judgment provides welcome clarification on an important aspect of Dutch private law and will no doubt reduce the volume of claims based solely on the absence of a Dutch licence. At the same time, the broader questions surrounding cross-border enforcement of judgments and the future of Article 56A remain unresolved. As litigation continues to evolve across Europe, these developments will remain of considerable importance to operators licensed in Malta.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.