On 29 September 2026, the Dutch House of Representatives considered a proposal to introduce a blanket ban on gambling advertising. Prior to the vote, we examined the potential impact of such a measure and argued that a complete prohibition could have unintended consequences for channelisation and consumer protection. Following the rejection of the motion, it is worthwhile to revisit those arguments, look at the vote itself and briefly outline the current Dutch advertising regime.
In an earlier article for EGR, we argued that a total ban on gambling advertising would likely undermine rather than strengthen player protection. While concerns about gambling-related harm are entirely legitimate, particularly where young adults and vulnerable consumers are concerned, it is important to recognise the role advertising plays within a regulated market.
When the Dutch regulated online gambling market opened in October 2021, one of its central policy objectives was channelisation: encouraging consumers to choose licensed operators instead of unlicensed offshore websites. This objective was initially achieved with considerable success. By mid-2023, approximately 93% of Dutch players were gambling exclusively with licensed operators.
The ability of licensed operators to remain visible was an important factor in achieving this result. Consumers can only choose regulated operators if they know who they are. Over the past years, however, advertising rules have been tightened significantly. Untargeted advertising has already been prohibited since July 2023 under the Besluit Orka [Decree on Untargeted Advertising for Remote Gambling], while targeted online advertisements are subject to strict audience and compliance requirements.
The concern is that if licensed operators become entirely invisible, consumers looking to gamble will not necessarily stop searching. Instead, they may increasingly encounter unlicensed platforms that operate outside Dutch supervision and consumer protection rules. A complete advertising ban could therefore weaken channelisation and unintentionally drive players towards the illegal market, where safeguards against gambling harm are largely absent.
For that reason, we concluded that stricter regulation of gambling advertising may be justified, but that a blanket ban would be a disproportionate measure which risks undermining the very objectives of the Dutch regulatory framework.
The rejected motion
That debate reached the Dutch House of Representatives on 29 September. During the parliamentary voting session, Diederik van Dijk (a member of the Dutch House of Representatives) presented a motion calling for a comprehensive ban on gambling advertising in the Netherlands. The proposal would have prohibited advertising by both online and land-based gambling operators.
According to the motion, the existing restrictions on online gambling advertising could lead operators to shift their marketing efforts towards physical gambling products and land-based venues. A complete prohibition was therefore proposed as a means of preventing what was perceived as a regulatory loophole.
The proposal attracted support from several political parties and reflected the growing political concern regarding gambling-related harm. Nevertheless, the motion ultimately failed to obtain a parliamentary majority. The final vote was 64 in favour and 76 against, meaning the proposal fell 12 seats short of adoption.
The rejection of the motion is noteworthy. It indicates that a majority of parliament was not convinced that a complete advertising ban would be an effective or proportionate response to the challenges facing the Dutch gambling market. Instead, the outcome suggests a preference for more targeted interventions which seek to address specific risks without removing the visibility of licensed operators altogether.
The current advertising framework in a nutshell
The rejection of the blanket ban does not mean that gambling advertising remains unrestricted in the Netherlands. On the contrary, the Dutch advertising framework is already one of the strictest in Europe and has been tightened considerably in recent years.
Since 1 July 2023, untargeted advertising for online gambling has been prohibited under the Besluit Orka. This means that television commercials, radio advertisements, billboards, public transport advertising and other forms of mass-market promotion are no longer permitted for online gambling operators.
Certain forms of targeted advertising remain possible, particularly online, but only under strict conditions. Licensed operators must be able to demonstrate that advertising is directed predominantly at adults and does not reach vulnerable groups. Affiliate marketing remains permissible, but is subject to detailed requirements concerning audience composition and consumer protection.
At the same time, parliament continues to advocate stronger enforcement against illegal operators rather than further restrictions on licensed operators.
During the same parliamentary voting session, several motions were adopted that focus on combating the illegal market. These include support for giving the Netherlands Gambling Authority (KSA) additional enforcement tools such as DNS blocking, measures aimed at holding large online platforms accountable when illegal gambling advertisements remain visible after removal requests, and proposals to strengthen cooperation between the KSA, the Public Prosecution Service and the police. Parliament also supported exploring criminal prosecution of illegal operators.
In addition, parliament adopted a motion supporting the introduction of a higher minimum age of 21 for higher-risk gambling products, provided that enforcement against the illegal market can be strengthened sufficiently.
Taken together, these developments reveal a clear policy direction. The parliamentary majority appears to favour targeted regulation, stricter enforcement and enhanced consumer protection measures, while rejecting a complete ban on gambling advertising.
The underlying rationale is straightforward: a regulated gambling market can only function effectively if consumers are able to distinguish licensed operators from illegal alternatives. The September vote suggests that, for now, parliament recognises that delicate balance between player protection and channelisation.
Guusje Pannekoek is an attorney-at-law specialising in administrative law, with a particular focus on gambling and gaming regulation. Pannekoek advises and represents clients on a broad range of regulatory, enforcement and compliance matters related to gambling.
The post Netherlands: Rejection of blanket ad ban shows a “clear policy direction” first appeared on EGR Intel.
Blenheim attorney Guusje Pannekoek suggests the proposal’s failure in parliament, coupled with new powers being handed to the regulator, shows the authorities “recognises that delicate balance between player protection and channelisation”
The post Netherlands: Rejection of blanket ad ban shows a “clear policy direction” first appeared on EGR Intel.