Gambling contracts with illegal online operators are valid says Dutch Supreme Court

Background: years of legal uncertainty on validity of contract with illegel gaming providers

The provision of online games of chance was prohibited in the Netherlands until 1 October 2021, when the Remote Gambling Act came into force and it became possible for providers to obtain a Dutch licence. In the years prior to that date, foreign providers — such as PokerStars (TSG Interactive Gaming Europe Limited, based in Malta) and partycasino.com (Electraworks Europe Limited, also based in Malta) — operated without a licence as referred to in the Games of Chance Act (Wok). This lack of a Dutch licence constituted a breach of Article 1(1), preamble and under (a), of the Wok, which prohibits providing the opportunity to participate in games of chance without a licence.

In the years following 2021, operators faced legal proceedings from player’s claims. Players claimed reimbursement of their losses, with the main legal basis being that the gambling contract was void under Article 3:40 of the Dutch Civil Code. The lower courts were divided: various courts upheld the claims and declared the agreements void, whilst other judges ruled that the agreements were merely voidable or that their validity was not affected at all. At the end of January 2025, the District Courts of Amsterdam and North Holland decided to settle the matter and, pursuant to Article 392 of the Code of Civil Procedure, referred questions for a preliminary ruling to the Supreme Court.

The preliminary questions on gaming contracts

The lower Dutch courts posed largely identical questions to the Suprem Court. The key question was whether a gambling contract between a consumer residing in the Netherlands and an unlicensed online provider is void under Article 3:40 of the Dutch Civil Code, and if so, what legal consequences this entails, in particular whether recovery on the basis of undue payment is possible.

The Supreme Court’s ruling on gambling contracts: no nullity, no voidability

On 3 July 2026, the Supreme Court answered the preliminary questions in a manner favourable to the sector. The essence of the ruling is clear and unambiguous: contracts entered into with an online gambling provider acting in contravention of the prohibition laid down in Article 1(1), preamble and under (a), of the Wok, are not void or voidable under Article 3:40 of the Dutch Civil Code.

The Supreme Court substantiates this ruling on three grounds

Firstly, it follows from Article 3:40(3) of the Dutch Civil Code that a breach of a mandatory statutory provision only leads to nullity or voidability if that provision is intended to affect the validity of conflicting legal acts. According to the Supreme Court, Article 1 of the Wok has never had such a purpose: “It cannot be inferred from the text and structure of the Wok that the Wok is intended to affect the validity of agreements concluded with providers of games of chance who do not hold the required licence for that purpose”. The Wok provides exclusively for administrative and criminal sanctions and contains no provisions regarding the civil law consequences of the absence of a licence.

Secondly, there are no grounds for nullity on the basis of a conflict with public order or public morality (Section 3:40(1) of the Dutch Civil Code). The Supreme Court points out that Dutch gambling regulation does not impose a categorical ban on gambling, but has traditionally been aimed at channelling the desire to gamble towards a legal offering. Gambling contracts are not in themselves impermissible, and the content of a contract need not differ depending on whether or not the provider holds a licence.

Thirdly, the legislative history has never contained any indication that nullity or voidability was intended, not even at the time of the enactment of the Remote Gambling Act in 2019. The absence of such an indication carries significant weight: “H , it would have been obvious that if the legislature had intended nullity or voidability, this would have been addressed in the text or legislative history of the Wok”.

What does this mean for the gaming sector: an end to claims based on nullity

This ruling is of great practical significance for online gambling providers. Prior to the ruling, a trend was evident in the lower courts whereby courts would automatically declare gambling contracts void and order providers to reimburse the full net loss. In 2024, one player succeeded in recovering no less than €676,224.76 from Unibet in this way. The Supreme Court has now definitively ruled out the nullity route as a collective remedy.

This is in line with the opinion of Advocate General Lindenbergh, which was delivered on 28 November 2025. His conclusion – that the prohibition in the Wok is intended to prevent people from gambling with illegal operators, but that this prohibition does not affect the contract itself – has been adopted by the Supreme Court.

Remaining risks for illegal gambling operators: tort and defects of consent

The Supreme Court does not rule out the possibility that operators may still be held liable in individual cases. The judgment expressly leaves room for claims based on tort and for the annulment of contracts due to a defect of consent. After all, the illegal provision of games of chance may be regarded as a tort, and in that context, players could in theory also claim more than just their lost stake, such as consequential damages. However, these claims are highly personal in nature and require an individual assessment of the circumstances of each case, meaning that the large-scale nature of the class actions brought prior to 2024 cannot be replicated on the same basis.

More clarity now on player’s claims

The ruling of 3 July 2026 (ECLI:NL:HR:2026:1159) provides the online gambling sector with the legal certainty it has been seeking for years. Gambling contracts concluded in the period prior to 1 October 2021 are legally valid. The Supreme Court has allayed fears of a mass obligation to repay on the grounds of nullity or undue payment. The courts will now proceed with the underlying cases, taking this ruling into account.