SBC News

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.

The European Commission (EC) has been formally notified of new technical and supervisory powers sought by Spillemyndigheden, Denmark’s Gambling Authority.

On 13 January, Spillemyndigheden submitted a notification to the European Commission’s Technical Regulation Information System (TRIS), initiating the EU-mandated review process for proposed regulatory reforms.

Under EU law, Member State authorities are required to notify the Commission of draft technical regulations to ensure that proposed measures do not breach internal-market principles, competition rules, or EU standards.

The TRIS procedure allows the Commission and other Member States to assess the proportionality and compatibility of national legislation prior to adoption.

Through its submission, Spillemyndigheden has launched a consultation on expanded supervisory and enforcement powers set out under draft provisions of Denmark’s proposed Marketing and Advertising Law.

The draft legislation has yet to receive final approval by the Folketinget. However, the overhaul of Denmark’s marketing and advertising framework appears to carry broad political consensus, with ministers supporting the introduction of sector-specific rules targeting gambling advertising.

Scheduled for implementation from 2027, the law aims to significantly reduce the volume of gambling advertising across Danish media, while introducing new safeguards to ensure advertising is directed exclusively at adult audiences aged 25 and over.

Among the proposed measures is a “whistle-to-whistle” advertising ban, which would prohibit all forms of gambling promotion during live sporting events from 10 minutes before kick-off until 10 minutes after full-time.

Marketing activity will also be restricted from portraying gambling as a lifestyle choice, with draft provisions prohibiting endorsements by celebrities, athletes and influencers across all media channels.

Land-based measures would introduce a ban on gambling advertising within a 200-metre radius of schools and youth education institutions, as well as across public transport networks and associated areas.

Provisions governing social media and affiliate marketing remain under development, with further clarification expected as the legislative process continues.

In its TRIS submission, Spillemyndigheden has requested the Commission’s assessment of new supervisory measures that would expand its remit across media and marketing verticals. This includes establishing a legal basis to block illegal gambling advertising linked to operators not authorised under Denmark’s Gambling Act.

The draft law would also broaden the Authority’s sanctioning powers, introducing clearer principles and criteria for calculating fines and clarifying its authority to issue administrative injunctions in cases of regulatory breaches.

For land-based operations, Spillemyndigheden has further requested oversight on whether it may revise interpretations of certain gambling definitions under the Danish Gambling Act of 2012 — notably proposals to merge the classifications of gaming shops and gaming halls into a simplified regulatory framework for stakeholders.

Responsibility for steering the final legislative process will fall to Denmark’s newly appointed Tax Minister, Ane Halsboe-Jørgensen, who has publicly backed stronger protections for Danish youth audiences and consumers.

Notably, the Folketinget has already rejected proposals to introduce a blanket ban on gambling advertising and sports sponsorship, measures which can no longer be tabled under the current process.

The European Commission has set a standstill deadline of 14 April to respond to Spillemyndigheden’s TRIS notification.