Steve Hoare

The Dutch gambling regulator, Kansspelautoriteit (KSA), has made further commitments to increasing player safety in 2026.

Following a turbulent year for the Dutch gambling sector and politics overall, the gambling authority is ending January on a high note with its supervisory agenda for the next 12 months.

A total of five main pressing issues were outlined in the document, which KSA Chair Michel Groothuizen and his team will aim to address fully as the year rolls by.

These include black market operators, vulnerable groups protection, duty of care standards, advertising, and AML policies.

Offshore actors: public enemy number one

In the new year, the KSA has expressed willingness to tighten the coordination of all parties involved in the Dutch licensed gambling industry for a wide-scale counterattack against the growing shadow of the black market.

Such efforts will continue to build on a successful 2025 for the KSA, which managed to blacklist a large number of affiliates using the .nl domain through a partnership with the Foundation for Internet Domain Registration. Deepened communication between the regulator and social media companies to remove illegal content is also expected to expand.

One particularly interesting development to look forward to this year is KSA’s investigative work on tracking down slot machines that have come from bankrupt or closed down land-based venues.

Vulnerable groups take prevalence

Understandably, another top priority will be the protection of vulnerable demographics such as children and current or at-risk problem gamblers. The KSA has firmly declared that it will work towards reducing the number of minors coming into contact with gambling through extensive data controls and additional monitoring of gambling providers.

Beware of your duty of care

Operators were also promised heightened scrutiny of their duty of care compliance coming 2026. There is a long list of reforms in the online gambling sector that is gradually being implemented, and gambling providers can rest assured that they will be tried and tested for compliance issues by the KSA.

There are a number of studies into player behaviours scheduled to conclude sometime this year, on the result of which the KSA is likely to introduce even more market amendments. One such study is the effectiveness of player financial checks that operators currently deploy – with the concluding statement certain to amend KSA’s course of action.

Do you have receipts for this money?

Last but not least, this year’s KSA agenda envisions significant developments on the anti-money laundering front. It is safe to assume that the Netherlands already has robust policies in place given its location on the world map, but the gambling regulator anticipates even more scrutiny – especially once the newly-established European AML agency AMLA springs into action later this year.

All in all, it is shaping up to be an eventful 12-month period for the gambling sector in the land of the tulips – even more so now that there is a new government in place.

Former Entain Director of Regulatory Affairs Martin Lycka is joining Oddin.gg as VP Institutional Relations.  The Czech esports odds provider has grown quickly over the past few years and now numbers over 300 staff worldwide. In this global role Lycka will support the company’s growth plans by managing the business’s government affairs and regulatory matters. …

Kansspelautoriteit (KSA), the Dutch Gambling Authority has issued two fines, one for failure to comply with player protection standards and another for illegal operations.

The larger of the two fines, standing at €4.2m, was issued to Starscream Ltd, which was found operating the brands of rantcasino.com, allstarzcasino.com, and sugarcasino.com without a Dutch licence.

This is the second time Starscream has been fined for illegally operating in the Netherlands, having been issued a €840,000 penalty in April last year. Both cases may demonstrate the difficulty of finding illegal operators, however – if a company is not licensed in a country, how can a regulator enforce payment of its penalty?

On a wider scale, the two fines against Starscream also demonstrate the continuing battle against the black market being waged in the Netherlands. Operators often argue that marketing restrictions and high taxation are a cause of the country’s black market woes.

Michel Groothuizen, Chairman of the board of the KSA, said: “The Netherlands Gambling Authority has a wide range of tools at its disposal to tackle illegal providers. Imposing administrative fines is one of them.

“Although collecting such fines presents challenges, particularly for parties outside the EU, with these fines we continue to send the message that we are taking a tough stance against illegal offerings in the Netherlands.”

KSA not easing up

The second fine issued this week is a much more typical one in the Netherlands, centring around player protection. The KSA has made player protection, particularly protection of younger and more vulnerable customers, a top priority in recent years.

Notable fines for player protection reasons in 2025 were issued to Unibet, LeoVegas and JOI Gaming, for the reasons of player supervision in the cases of Unibet and LeoVegas and advertising infractions in JOI Gaming’s case.

In the most recent instance, the KSA has fined Tulipa Ent Ltd, which trades as ComeOn the Netherlands, for failing to detect signs of excessive gambling behviaour among 10 young adult players on time. This included setting ‘excessive deposit limits’ and incurring thousands in losses over short periods of time.

Groothuizen added: “The Ksa previously found that providers’ implementation of their duty of care varied too widely and often left much to be desired. We therefore conducted additional research with various providers, resulting in the various duty of care fines we are now seeing.

“Providers absolutely must not let slip something as essential as the duty of care, especially when it concerns vulnerable target groups such as young adults.”

The long-standing legal battle of Austrian courts to enforce national laws and rules on foreign-licensed operators has reached a significant turning point.

This morning, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) provided a preliminary determination on the dispute between Austria Supreme Court and Malta referred for arbitration to the European Commission (EC).

The legal challenge was initiated in 2022 by an Austrian player who sued the Maltese business Titanium Brace Ltd – the placeholder name for a defunct licence of DACH market operator DrückGlück (drueckglueck.com).

The case spans over twenty years of regulatory and legislative changes in European gambling and member state law. However, the original challenge remains, as the plaintiff seeks to hold foreign-licensed operators accountable for offering unregulated gambling across borders.

Austrian courts uphold that the plaintiff has a right to reclaim losses, as the player had sued the former Maltese licence that had no authorisation to provide online gambling services in Austria.

However, citing Maltese law, Titanium Brace denied any payout, stating that its authority and compliance were accountable to the jurisdiction of Malta.

The case has been closely monitored by legal observers, who deem it a test for the CJEU to interpret EU single-market freedoms and member state autonomy over gambling regimes.

Following an extended review, the CJEU views that under the EU’s Rome II Regulation, local laws are applicable as a “non-contractual obligation”.

As such, the interpretation deems that liabilities can be claimed in the member state where the damage occurs, regardless of the licensing parameters of a business.

In online gambling cases, “the damage arises where the player resides, as that is where the financial loss and consumer protection interests manifest.”

Accordingly, the CJEU held that Austrian law would apply to the case, allowing the player to pursue claims under “domestic tort law”. However, the Court noted that if a tort is closely aligned to another member state, judges may apply that country’s law instead.

“The law applicable to a non-contractual obligation arising out of a tort or delict shall be the law of the country in which the damage occurs.

“In games of chance organised in another Member State without the necessary national licence, the law applicable to that damage is, in principle, that of the Member State in which that person has their habitual residence.”

With regard to the long-standing dispute, the CJEU deems that Austrian laws are applicable, due to the condition that Austria has specific consumer protection rules , a determining factor that could be referenced against Titanium Brace.

The CJEU underscores that its ruling is a preliminary matter, as the arbitration aims to interpret EU law – the CJEU does not decide legal outcomes. To proceed with settlements, Austrian courts must apply the CJEU’s interpretation when ruling on the actual case.

Fragmented Europe

Though preliminary, the CJEU determination will have significant ramifications for wider challenges against Malta-licensed operators and its courts.

Similar disputes over player loss claims have been submitted by German courts, most notably a 2023 case (C-440/23) involving a customer in Hesse seeking to recover losses from Lottoland as an unlicensed operator. The challenge was referred to the European Court of Justice by the Regional Court of Gießen.

The German case has since received an Advocate General opinion favourable to Malta, stating that “claims for restitution of stakes under national law do not fall foul of the EU doctrine of abuse of rights.”

The Advocate General reasoned that “restitution claims are governed by national contract and civil law, not by EU market freedoms such as the freedom to provide services, and thus do not inherently constitute abuse of EU law.”

Malta stands by Bill 55

The conflicts have spanned significant changes in national legislation on gambling across multiple EU member states. In 2023, Malta’s government proceeded to codify Bill 55, endorsed by the Ministry of Finance and the Malta Gaming Authority (MGA), as Article 56A of the Gaming Act.

The amendment allowed Maltese courts to refuse recognition or enforcement of foreign judgments against Malta-licensed businesses, provided that the disputed gambling activities were lawful under Maltese regulation.

Upon its introduction, the Maltese government was requested to explain Bill 55 to the EC, as the member states of the Netherlands, Germany, and Austria raised objections.

Malta was accused of effectively shielded online gambling operators from legal responsibility and undermined enforcement of national authorities.

The government justified the measure as necessary to protect the integrity of its licensing regime and uphold EU principles of service freedom, arguing that Malta’s remote gaming framework should not be undermined by conflicting national laws elsewhere in Europe.

Malta maintains the provisions of Bill 55 within its Gaming Act. The government cites that, to date, no Maltese court has applied or enforced its protections in cross-border disputes concerning online gambling conflicts.