The Netherlands’ Supreme Court has ruled that contracts between players and online gambling operators lacking Dutch licences are not void under the country’s civil law.
The decision narrows a key repayment argument in player claims over losses at unlicensed sites.
Two disputes prompted the 3 July preliminary ruling, involving PokerStars operator TSG Interactive Gaming Europe and PartyCasino operator Electraworks Europe. Both are Malta-based and neither held a Dutch licence during the relevant period.
One claimant said he lost $139,464.58 playing with PokerStars between 2006 and 2021. Another said he lost €135,137 on PartyCasino from August 2020 through July 2021.
Each sought repayment on the basis that their agreements with the operators were invalid.
The ruling is the latest in a series of legal battles over unlicensed gambling and refunds taking place across Europe.
District courts in Amsterdam and Noord-Holland sent largely matching questions to the Supreme Court in January 2025. They asked whether the Netherlands Gambling Act made these contracts void under Article 3:40 of the Dutch Civil Code.
The court answered no. It found that the Act’s ban on offering games of chance without a licence was mandatory. However, the legislation was never designed to alter the civil validity of contracts made in breach of that ban.
The Act provides administrative oversight and criminal enforcement, the court said, but does not set out civil remedies for players who used unlicensed sites. That omission was central to the court’s conclusion.
Gambling does not offend morality laws
The judges also rejected the argument that these agreements offend public order or morality.
Dutch gambling law does not impose a categorical prohibition on gambling. Instead, it channels demand toward authorised operators, with safeguards intended to protect players and curb abuse.
That approach is reflected in the law’s treatment of gambling contracts. Licensed gambling carries enforceable claims and a one-year limitation period. The Gambling Act contains no equivalent rule invalidating agreements with unlicensed operators.
The court said the regulator’s former prioritisation criteria did not change the answer. Those criteria had guided enforcement against online operators before the licensing regime took effect, but an operator’s compliance with them cannot determine whether a contract is void.
The ruling also covers sites that merely match players against one another. TSG had argued that PokerStars primarily provided an online venue for peer-to-peer play. The court held that this distinction did not affect the contract-validity question.
The decision does not end every claim arising from unlicensed online gambling. The court said a contract may still be challenged over defects of will, and that it may also support a claim based on unlawful conduct, depending on the facts.
For now, the ruling narrows a litigation strategy built around automatic restitution. Going forward, individual claims must instead be assessed under other parts of Dutch civil law.
