The Netherlands’ Supreme Court has ruled that contracts between players and unlicensed online gambling operators are not void under Dutch civil law.
The decision significantly narrows one of the central legal arguments players have used to pursue repayment for losses at unlicensed gambling sites.
The preliminary ruling, issued on 3 July, was prompted by two separate disputes involving PokerStars operator TSG Interactive Gaming Europe and PartyCasino operator Electraworks Europe.
Both companies are Malta-based and neither held a Dutch licence during the periods in question, which formed the basis of the player complaints.
One claimant reported losing $139,464.58 playing with PokerStars across a period spanning 2006 to 2021.
A second claimant said he lost €135,137 on PartyCasino between August 2020 and July 2021, with both players arguing their agreements with the operators were legally invalid.
District courts in Amsterdam and Noord-Holland had sent largely matching questions to the Supreme Court in January 2025, asking whether the Netherlands Gambling Act made such contracts void under Article 3:40 of the Dutch Civil Code.
The Supreme Court answered no, finding that while the Act’s ban on offering games of chance without a licence was mandatory, the legislation was never designed to alter the civil validity of contracts made in breach of that ban.
The court found that the Gambling Act provides administrative oversight and criminal enforcement mechanisms, but does not set out civil remedies for players who used unlicensed sites, and that omission proved central to the ruling.
Judges also rejected the argument that agreements with unlicensed operators offend public order or morality, noting that Dutch gambling law does not impose a categorical prohibition on gambling but instead channels demand toward authorised operators.
The court noted that licensed gambling carries enforceable claims and a one-year limitation period, while the Gambling Act contains no equivalent rule invalidating agreements struck with unlicensed operators.
The ruling also addressed the regulator’s former prioritisation criteria, which guided enforcement against online operators before the licensing regime took effect, but the court said operator compliance with those criteria cannot determine whether a contract is void.
TSG had argued that PokerStars primarily provided an online venue for peer-to-peer play, but the court held that this distinction did not affect the contract-validity question.
The decision does not entirely close the door on claims arising from unlicensed online gambling, as the court confirmed that contracts may still be challenged over defects of will or through unlawful conduct arguments depending on the specific facts.
The ruling is the latest development in a broader series of legal battles over unlicensed gambling and player refunds playing out across Europe, and for now it forces individual claimants to pursue recovery through other parts of Dutch civil law rather than relying on automatic restitution.
