Two opposition parties in the Netherlands have put forward a joint motion that would dramatically expand the powers available to the Dutch gambling regulator, including the ability to impose fines worth up to 100% of an operator’s annual revenue, alongside a complete ban on iGaming advertising and an extended minimum exclusion period for problem gamblers.
The motion has been tabled by Mirjam Bikker, leader of the ChristenUnie, and Sarah Dobbe, leader of the Socialist Party, two parties with little in common politically but a shared view that the liberalisation of the Dutch online gambling market in October 2021 has produced outcomes more harmful than the government acknowledged at the time.
Their argument draws on the numbers that have emerged since regulated iGaming launched five years ago. Approximately 450,000 new gamblers have entered the Dutch online market since regulation began, and young adults between 18 and 21 now account for about 22% of all active online gambling accounts. Bikker made her concern explicit: “Slot machines are now literally in your pocket, and you see gambling ads everywhere in the high street.”
The proposed fine escalation is a direct response to a practical enforcement problem. The current maximum fine the Kansspelautoriteit, known as the KSA, can impose is capped at 10% of an operator’s estimated illegal revenue. The KSA itself has complained publicly that this ceiling makes enforcement disproportionate to the profits available to unlicensed operators who continue targeting Dutch consumers. The regulator recently imposed a record €24 million fine against unlicensed operator Novatech, but made clear it believed even that amount was insufficient given the scope of illegal activity.
Raising the cap to 100% of annual turnover, as the opposition motion proposes, would fundamentally change the risk calculus for operators considering whether to pursue the Dutch market without a licence. That is the intended effect: making non-compliance economically catastrophic rather than merely inconvenient.
The proposed self-exclusion extension from six months to twelve is the part of the motion that carries the clearest consumer protection logic. The existing six-month minimum under the Cruks national self-exclusion register has been criticised by addiction specialists as too short a window to embed genuine behavioural change, and extending it would bring the Netherlands more in line with best practices emerging from the UK and Germany.
The advertising ban is more contentious because it runs parallel to a separate government proposal and because past attempts at blanket ad bans have produced workaround behaviour. When Belgium banned gambling sponsorships from January 2026, clubs quickly found alternatives: Club Brugge switched from Unibet branding to “U-experts,” and Cercle Brugge rebranded its Golden Palace Casino sponsor as “Golden Palace News.” Dutch legislators are watching those developments closely as a cautionary example of what superficial compliance looks like in practice.
The 2026 licence renewal cycle adds another layer of complexity. This year marks five years since the Dutch regulated market launched, meaning all licensees must renew their operating permits to continue in the market. The regulatory environment is clearly moving in a more restrictive direction, and operators who have already invested heavily in the Dutch market must now factor in the possibility that the advertising landscape and penalty regime will look very different by the time those renewals land.
