The Dutch Supreme Court has delivered a major setback to players seeking compensation for losses incurred on grey market gambling sites, ruling that those who wagered with unlicensed operators prior to the regulation of the Dutch market in October 2021 will not be entitled to pursue refunds.
Prior to the regulation of the market, operators had served the Dutch market with a Maltese licence. The regulation of the market introduced online licences issued by the Netherlands Gambling Authority (KSA).
Across Europe, player claims around refunds for gambling with operators when markets were not locally licensed have been on the rise.
Some lower courts in the Netherlands have allowed players to pursue claims, while others have blocked moves, leading to the question landing on the Supreme Court’s docket.
In the Netherlands, preliminary rulings were escalated to the Supreme Court by District Courts in Amsterdam and Haarlem, North Holland.
In Amsterdam, a lawsuit had been filed against Flutter Entertainment subsidiary TSG Interactive, while the Haarlem case listed ElectraWorks Europe, an Entain-owned firm which oversees the Party Casino brand, as a defendant.
The plaintiffs in the respective lawsuits claimed to have lost substantial amounts of money with both operators before October 2021, arguing that a lack of a Dutch licence should render the contracts with the respective companies invalid and that money lost should be repaid.
The Supreme Court’s involvement concerns a section of the Dutch Civil Code, which states that a contract may be void or voidable “if it contravenes the law, public order or public morality”.
However, on 3 July, the Supreme Court ruled that the wording of the gambling legislation doesn’t allow for the voiding of contracts in this situation.
Therefore, any agreements willingly entered into by a customer with an operator without the required licence aren’t able to be voided.
The ruling stated: “It cannot be inferred from the text and structure of the Gambling Act that the Gambling Act 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 Gambling Act provides for administrative and criminal sanctions but does not regulate the civil law consequences of breaching the prohibitions contained therein.
“However, Articles 38–39 of the Gambling Act do provide for enforceability and a limitation period for claims arising from games of chance in which participation was permitted under a licence granted pursuant to the Gambling Act.
“However, no conclusions can be drawn from this regarding the civil law consequences of the aforementioned agreements, which were concluded in contravention of the requirement for a licence.”
Entain welcomed the Supreme Court ruling, stating that any customer claims to refunds are now untenable.
An Entain spokesperson said: “Bwin, PartyCasino and PartyPoker welcome the Supreme Court’s ruling.
“It confirms the position they have consistently maintained, which is that gambling agreements entered into before 1 October 2021 are valid, and that any historic gambling losses incurred cannot be recovered on the basis that those agreements were void.
“In light of the Court’s decision, any attempt to pursue such claims, whether individually or collectively, is no longer tenable.”
The District Courts will now proceed with their respective cases, taking into account the ruling from the Supreme Court.
The post Dutch Supreme Court deals blow to player claims for grey market losses first appeared on EGR Intel.
Verdict states that players who lost money with firms prior to Netherlands’ regulation in 2021 are not automatically entitled to refunds, a finding lower courts must now factor into ongoing claims
The post Dutch Supreme Court deals blow to player claims for grey market losses first appeared on EGR Intel.