Netherlands Online Gambling Regulation, Licensing & Tax Regime

The Kansspelautoriteit applied its 2026 fining policy rule for illegal remote gambling for the first time this period, issuing a record administrative fine against one unlicensed operator and a cease order against a second, both arising from the same sanction basis under the Wet op de kansspelen. EOD Code SRL was fined EUR 37.25 million for offering unlicensed online casino and sports betting via instantcasino.com and skyhills.com, with the fine capped from a calculated EUR 292.6 million under the statutory ten-percent-of-turnover ceiling. JACO V.I.P. Limitada was separately ordered to cease unlicensed gambling offered through spinstar.bet. Alongside this enforcement activity, SBC and Vergunde Nederlandse Online Kansspelaanbieders, the trade association for licensed Dutch online gambling operators, announced a new multi-year strategic partnership ahead of SBC Summit Europe debuting at RAI Amsterdam. Together these developments point to an increasingly active regulator applying newly operative guidance against the unlicensed segment, set against continued commercial activity within the licensed segment.

In the EOD Code SRL fining decision, the Kansspelautoriteit treated specific product-design features as aggravating circumstances within its calculation under the Boetebeleidsregel illegaal aanbod kansspelen op afstand 2026: the presence of autoplay and turboplay features, and the absence or non-prefilling of play limits, were each weighed toward the fifty percent uplift applied to the base fine. This is the first instance in which such design-level features have been explicitly priced into a Kansspelautoriteit fining calculation for an unlicensed offer, and it signals the markers the regulator associates with inadequately controlled product design, distinct from the separate age-verification and prohibited-market factors also treated as aggravating in the same decision.

## Supervision by Regulator On 20 January 2026, the NGA published its Supervision Agenda 2026 in which it describes what it wants to achieve in terms of supervision and how it aims to do this. According to the Supervision Agenda 2026, the NGA will pay extra attention to the following topics (as relevant for remote gambling): Combatting illegal offers; Protecting vulnerable groups: minors and young adults; Duty of care (to prevent gambling addiction); Advertising; AML compliance In July 2024 the NGA issued a press release indicating that it would set up a new special enforcement department focusing on the remote gambling licence holders’ duty of care (addiction prevention). This has resulted in an uptick in enforcement measures whereby the NGA seeks to ensure that operators take remedial action to correct their behaviour so as to ensure full compliance with regulatory requirements. This has resulted in the NGA sanctioning a number of licence holders for alleged duty of care violations. An overview of such sanctions from 2025/2026 can be found below. Licensed operators are required to submit annual and quarterly returns reporting on a plethora of data, relating to topics including spend on advertising, bonuses and the number of player complaints received (this is in addition to notifying the NGA of incidents). The NGA has access to real near-time data which operators must feed into the CDB. The NGA has indicated that it will compare operators against their peers. To illustrate this, the NGA could compare operators with similarly sized player databases to see whether they take undertake similar number of responsible gambling interventions. If one operator takes substantially fewer interventions, then the NGA may well investigate further. ## Enforcement against licensed operators To date the NGA’s enforcement activities against licence holders have concentrated upon matters around player protection and AML concerns. In addition to the matters listed below we are also aware of other matters where the NGA contacted operators, taking a position that they were in breach of a particular requirement, and that the parties concerned altered their offerings so as to comply, without contesting the matter. Published sanction decisions (fines, cease-and-desist orders and binding instructions from 2025 until October 2026 are:: January 2025 saw the NGA impose against an unnamed licence holder for EUR 734,000 with regards to duty of care failings. The NGA established that the licence holder had not adequately analysed players’ gambling behaviour nor did it take adequate intervention measures. July 2025 saw the NGA issue a binding instruction against Tulipa Ent Limited for AML matters. Tulipa was instructed to improve its FIU reporting and AML training, as well as improve its customer due diligence processes, including source of funds checks. July 2025 saw the NGA impose a binding instruction on Optdeck Service Limited (Unibet) for AML shortcomings. Established shortcomings included those regarding transaction monitoring, inconsistently applying control measures, failings regarding source of funds and the ongoing monitoring of customer transactions. In August 2025 Betent B.V. was fined EUR 2,650,000 in relation to duty of care failings. This centered on the NGA establishing that Betent had failed to adequately analyse player behaviour and implement suitable intervention measures. Optdeck Service Limited was served with a cease-and-desist order in August 2025 so as to ensure compliance with match-fixing requirements, including not offering bets on corners, yellow cards or competitions/players which those under 21 years old. For each week which Unibet was found to be breach of the order (i.e. after the period for compliance had expired) a penalty of EUR 75,000 would accrue, subject to a maximum of EUR 450,000. October 2025 saw the NGA issue a fine of EUR 500,000 against LeoVegas Gaming p.l.c. for failures in upholding the duty of care to prevent addiction. The NGA considered that failings arose in relation to the analysis of player behaviour and implementing appropriate intervention measures. October 2025 also bore witness to the NGA issuing Optdeck Service Limited with a fine of EUR 4,000,000 for duty of care failings. Similar to other instances here, the NGA considered that Unibet had failed to adequately analyse player behaviour and take appropriate intervention measures. October 2025 also witnessed the NGA impose a binding instruction on state-owned TOTO Online B.V. for AML failings. These related to failing to conduct adequate client due diligence and ongoing monitoring of the business relationship, inadequate transaction monitoring and failing to properly investigate and substantiate source of funds. In November 2025 the NGA issued a binding instruction on Hillside New Media Plc in relation to the duty of care. According to the NGA Hillside New Media Plc did not adequately respond to signals that players could not bear the financial consequences of their gambling behaviour, and did not take appropriate intervention measures. The instruction called upon Hillside New Media Plc to amend the manner in which it assessed players’ affordability. Tulipa Ent Limited was issued within a fine of EUR 750,000 in December 2025, with the NGA having established failings in terms of the duty of care to prevent gambling addiction. According to the NGA Tulipa had not adequately analysed player behaviour nor implemented appropriate intervention measures. In May 2026, the NGA imposed an administrative fine of EUR 886,000 upon 771 B.V., having established that the operator failed to uphold its duty of care to prevent gambling addiction. The NGA considered that the operator’s analysis of players’ gambling behaviour was inadequate, and failed to implement appropriate intervention measures. Further to the above, the NGA has also published several press releases regarding issues where it considered that operators were not fully in compliance with the law and issued warnings to those concerned. Warnings are not founded upon a sanction decision as such, comparable with a fine for example, and the NGA can take further action should a licence holder not fully adhere to a warning.. Since January 2025, the NGA has altered its approach with such press releases, and has decided to also publish the name of the licence holder that is in violation. At the time of writing the following warnings have been issued in 2026: One Casino and bet365 received warnings early in February 2026 for having offered bets on prohibited sports-betting markets, namely in relation to football matches involving teams composed of players under 21 years of age. February 2026 saw three warnings to Tonybet, Kansino and Betcity regarding marketing related incidents in which gambling advertisements had reached vulnerable groups, including young adults. In March 2026 the NGA issued a warning to JACKS.NL for having breached the prohibition on sports sponsorship, as the operator’s logo for its land-based offering, as found on a sports federation’s website, contained a link to the remote offering. Both Holland Casino Online and Vbet received warnings April 2026 for offering bets on own goals, which are prohibited under the Dutch regime. In June 2026 TOTO Online received a warning for having violated the ban on using role models in advertising. June 2026 saw the NGA issue a warning against Betnation for failing to have checked some players against CRUKS. Betnation had self-reported this matter. Vbet was warned in July 2026 against offering bet types, in their live-betting offer, prohibited by requirements designed to prevent match-fixing. July 2026 saw the NGA issue a warning against Tonybet for non-compliance with the ban on using role models, as the manner in which individuals were portrayed was viewed as clearly depicting well-known international football players. August 2026 saw the NGA warn Betcity regarding non-compliance the ban on using role models in advertising, because of advertisements which included clear references to professional football players, although the players themselves were not shown. 711 received a warning in October 2026 in relation to the practice of requiring players to wager deposits, when made with certain payment methods, before being able to initiate a withdrawal. It is important to note that in January 2025, the NGA published its General Fining Policy Rule. This Policy Rule applies to all violations which the NGA establishes, which are committed or continuing on or after 2 January 2025 (the day of publication). Violations by those offering locally unlicensed games of chance fall under the Fining Policy Rule Unlicensed Remote Games of Chance of 2026 (discussed below). In the General Fining Policy Rule, the NGA introduces standard fine amounts, including a base amount per category (5 categories in total). Fines can range from EUR 500 to EUR 4,000,000. Furthermore,the NGA provides an overview of all provisions from the BGA and secondary legislation, and indicates within which category a violation of each provision falls. For violations in category IV, the NGA may opt to impose a turnover-related fine, in case the sanction based on the standard amount would not be an appropriate punishment. The turnover-related fine then replaces the standard fine. The General Fining Policy Rule can be found (in Dutch) here: https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/stcrt-2025-1121.html. ## Typical triggers for enforcement against unlicensed operators The NGA’s enforcement policy against unlawful remote gambling offers was based upon non-compliance with the prioritisation criteria which were first introduced in 2012, and expanded upon in 2017 (with the absence of a suitable age verification process upon registration being an additional trigger as of 1 January 2020). From 2017 onwards, the criteria are broadly the same as what is now referred to as the cooling-off criteria (for determining, for licences submitting during the period 1 April 2021 until 31 March 2022, eligibility for a remote gambling licence, where an operator has had a locally unlicensed presence on the market). Whilst being found to have breached the criteria was the trigger for further investigation, the underlying breach of the prohibition on offering unlicensed games of chance was the actual offence. It was broadly anticipated that the prioritisation criteria would enable a smooth transition to a licensed offering. In terms of tackling unlicensed offers, the NGA changed approach as of 1 November 2021. This was met with many operators completely withdrawing from the Netherlands pending the outcome of their (upcoming) licence application, whilst the general expectation was, up until that point, that they could remain on the market in compliance with the criteria until licensed operations commenced. The November 2021 approach departed from the prioritisation criteria, and consideration of whether the offering was targeting Dutch consumers became one of four elements, the other three being: The number of Dutch players making use of the offer The degree of harm which the illegal offer poses to the public objectives of the NGA Whether the illegal offer, or other circumstances, could draw players away from the legal market ## Enforcement action taken against unlicensed operators In terms of the present enforcement situation (status quo), the NGA has the competence to impose fines on local and non-local operators who offer and/or promote unlicensed games of chance on the Dutch market (i.e., violate the BGA). As per 1 January 2026, the administrative fine can reach a maximum of EUR 1,100,000 or in case it exceeds this amount, 10% of the turnover in the fiscal year prior to the sanction decision. As of 1 April 2021, the NGA can also issue binding instructions in addition to the aforementioned administrative fines and cease and desist orders. As of 14 July 2026, the NGA takes a harsher stance in terms of fining than it did previously, although it is constrained by parameters set down in legislation. The NGA’s point of departure when setting a fine is the operator’s GGR in the Netherlands during the financial year prior to the fine. If GGR, during this period, is less then EUR 800,000 then the NGA will apply a starting fine of EUR 800,000. Should the GGR be greater than EUR 800,000 then the fine will be calculated on the basis of the operator’s GGR in the Netherlands during the year prior to the fine decision. In this case, the amount of the starting fine will be 100% of the operator’s GGR, as derived from the Dutch market. Regardless of whether the starting fine is EUR 800,000 or more, the NGA will increase the fine should one or multiple “fine increasing circumstances” be established. For example, if the operator was found to target minors or other categories of vulnerable persons, the fine will be increased by 50% of the individual operator’s starting fine (which would be EUR 400,000 or a greater amount if the starting fine is higher than EUR 800,000). Multiple fine increasing circumstances can be applied to the starting amount. Furthermore, the starting fine will be doubled in cases of recidivism. The NGA notes that should it not receive reliable information from the operator itself about its GGR for the previous financial year then it will estimate what it considers this to be. This will be motivated in the sanction decision. As an utmost upper ceiling the NGA can fine an operator up to €1.1m or, if greater, 10% of its global net turnover (for which the NGA will use GGR, but can also include turnover from offering white label solutions for example). Recent fines for offering illegal remote games of chance include: - EOD Code SRL – EUR 37,260,000 (October 2026) - Fortaprime SRL – EUR 1,795,000 (February 2026) - Novatech Solutions N.V. – EUR 24,846,000 (December 2025) - Starscream Limited – EUR 4,228,000 (December 2025) - Gammix Limited – EUR 19,679,000 (December 2023) For a list of all sanctions taken see: https://kansspelautoriteit.nl/aanpak-misstanden/sanctiebesluiten/. Note that in some instances the NGA serves the operator with a cease-and-desist order (to order the operator to cease offering services in the Netherlands, subject to a penalty payment for non-compliance) and then subsequently serves a fine,for punitive purposes. Betting: In terms of the prevention of match-fixing the NGA’s tasks are limited to establishing whether operators take sufficient action to prevent match-fixing. Within the NGA a Sports Betting Intelligence Unit has been established, which acts as a hotline. This is separate from the operators’ duty to report matters to the Financial Intelligence Unit. In 2023 the NGA performed a market-wide investigation in connection to a signal received about possible match-fixing risks. Subsequently it provided further guidance early 2024 to remote sport betting licence holders. In August 2024, the NGA indicated in a press release that it had recently performed a follow-up investigation which revealed that in many cases, the match fixing analyses that licence holders must perform did not meet the legal requirements. As a result, the NGA imposed warnings on four licence holders. It also stated that it will continue to request match fixing analyses from licence holders in the future to check compliance with legal requirements. Bingo: Even though the industry may consider bingo to present a lower risk in terms of AML and responsible gambling considerations than other game types, the NGA does not single it out for a lighter touch approach. Bingo is licensed as a casino game and not a category within its own right. It must therefore satisfy all requirements in line with all other casino games. Casino: At present, there are no casino specific considerations regarding enforcement (other than warnings about autoplay). Where the NGA has looked into matters around AML compliance, this was independent of the underlying games on offer. Skill games: Games of skill do not fall within the scope of the BGA and therefore also fall outside the scope of the NGA’s remit. However, given that consideration is not required for a game to qualify as one of chance, games will not fall outside of the prohibition on unlicensed games of chance due to the absence of any stake. Note that despite the NGA’s defeat in attempting to bring enforcement measures against a loot box mechanism in a video game, this does not mean that all loot boxes do not qualify as games of chance. This will depend on the individual loot box mechanism and how it has been embedded within a particular game. Software/B2B: Given that B2B service suppliers now fall within the scope of Article 1(1)(b) BGA for the NGA makes use of this provision in attempts to strangle the ability of unlicensed operators to access the Dutch market. 2032 saw the first enforcement measures being imposed against hosting providers: Cloudfare: the NGA published two binding instructions against Cloudfare near the end of 2023, because it was hosting two affiliate websites which were promoting unlicensed offerings in the Netherlands. However, in April 2024, the NGA issued a press release in which it noted that this conclusion was technically incorrect. From conversations between the NGA and Cloudfare, it became clear that Cloudfare itself could not take measures to end the violation, but could provide information that could support the NGA. Following this, the NGA repealed the binding instructions and made agreements with Cloudfare instead. Cloudfare will help the NGA in providing information about hosting providers of illegal operators. DigitalOcean: In February 2024, the NGA imposed a binding instruction on DigitalOcean, a hosting provider of two “illegal” affiliates (that promote unlicensed games of chance). Initially DigitalOcean responded to the NGA that they were unable to take the websites offline, as they needed a court order for that. In February 2024, this court order was issued by the District Court of Rotterdam, and subsequently the binding instruction was imposed by the NGA. On 18 July 2024, the NGA announced that it had repealed the binding instruction because DigitalOcean had already stopped providing services to the illegal affiliates at the time the instruction was imposed. As part of its more “mainstream” approach, the NGA issues cease-and-desist orders against affiliates promoting unlicensed games of chance in the Netherlands, i.e., affiliates acting in breach of Article 1(1)(b) BGA. Should the affiliate not cease offering illegal games of chance within a given period of time after the order has been issued, then the penalty will be triggered. As an example, in June 2025 the NGA issued Sun Block Media Labs 2.0 Ltd with a cease-and-desist order, requiring that the entity cease promoting unlicensed games of chance within two weeks of the decision, otherwise a penalty of EUR 75k per week (or part thereof) would accrue, subject to a maximum of EUR 225,000. More recently, the NGA has also issued such orders against influencers based in the Netherlands who were promoting unlicensed games of chance on social media. For example, in September 2025 it issued a cease-and-desist order against the influencer known online as “Buurtwachtt”; the NGA ordered the influencer to immediately cease promoting unlicensed games of chance and remove existing content within five days of the decision. This was subject to a penalty of EUR 25k for each established breach, subject to a ceiling of EUR 75k. In this instance the NGA also found the influencer to be breach of the prohibition on knowingly participating in an unlicensed game of chance (Article 1(1)(c) BGA) – failing to cease participating in such offers would result in a penalty of EUR 500 per established breach, subject to a maximum of EUR 1500. Clearly there are other types of supplier in the gambling ecosystem which enable the provision of unlicensed remote games of chance in the Netherlands. To our knowledge, none of these have been subject to enforcement measures under Article 1(1)(b) BGA. However, the NGA conducts regular discussions with B2Bs as it explores how those supplying the licensed market can assist in foreclosing the unlicensed sector’s ability to reach players in the Netherlands.

In February 2025 the State Secretary for Legal Protection published a new “policy vision” for the gambling market, replacing the one which has been in place for more than a decade, and which underpinned the introduction of the remote gambling regime. The now current policy vision is characterised by shifting focus from the protection of consumers to the protecting citizens from the negative consequences which can be associated with gambling. It is in this context that “channelisation” of demand has been done away with as an objective, and has been reduced to merely being a means of measuring market developments. The State Secretary has also clearly indicated that there will be a range of new restrictions for the remote gambling market, although these will require changes to secondary regulations and therefore this will take time. Whilst ideas for further restrictions were first floated in February 2025, at the time of writing there have been no concrete (draft) legislative amendments, only further discussions. More information is expected in the first half of 2027 when a consultation process will open. Other than this, no timelines are known, but given that legislative amendments will be required it is reasonable to assume that statutory changes will not enter into force before 2029. Expected measures include: - Single overarching player limits, with an affordability check for players wishing to exceed the default threshold. Necessary technical solution to be developed and managed by the NGA. - Ban on advertising for remote games of chance, including bonuses. Only very narrow exceptions will be permitted, such as on the operator’s own website or in search engine results. Role of affiliates still to be determined. - Banning the ability of players to gamble with credit cards and “borrowed money”. - Amending provisions around CRUKS registrations. For example, the minimum registration period in the register will increase from six to twelve months, a shift away from automatic deregistration upon expiry of period of registration, and no longer will there be a maximum registration period as such - the 99 year term will become indefinite. - Other measures will also be detailed, such as that enabling the NGA to suspend an operator’s licence without this being part of an overall process to ultimately withdraw the licence, which is currently the case. Attention will also focus on tackling the illegal market. In February 2025 the idea to increase the minimum age of participation for the riskiest games of chance from 18 to 21 years old was also amongst those floated. This has now been shelved, at least for the time being, so not to push younger players into the illegal market. However, it could return to the table if measures for countering the illegal market are more effective than at present. Potentially capping the number of available licences has also arisen in parliamentary discourse. There has not been a debate on a number as such, at this stage. The current State Secretary has initiated a study into the feasibility of introducing a limit, after which proposals for legislative amendments may be put forward. Should such proposals eventually be made they will follow those for the points mentioned above. Skill games: Games which do not satisfy the definition of a game of chance remain outside the scope of the BGA; the material scope of the legislation has not changed. Within recent years the NGA has voiced its concerns between the blurring of lines between (video) games and gambling. One reflection of this is the fact that remote gambling operators cannot offer services other than the licensed offer on their remote gambling interface (app/website). In April 2018 the NGA published a study into the loot box mechanisms found within ten popular games titles and concluded that four of these mechanisms constituted games of chance. As these were not licensed in accordance with the BGA they were deemed to be illegal. Whilst some of the publishers bowed to the NGA’s pressure, Electronic Arts resisted the NGA’s finding that “FUT Packs” in its popular FIFA game were illegal games of chance. Whilst the NGA’s stance prevailed before the court of first instance, the Council of State (Raad van State) held, in March 2022, that the NGA had erred in applying the definition of a game of chance to the FUT Packs in FIFA. In order to reach the conclusion that the Packs were games of chance the NGA had isolated Packs from the broader game context, which was considered to be a skill game (into which the Packs added an element of chance). The Council of State held that the NGA could not take one element of the overall game and consider it in isolation from the broader game context, unless the NGA could demonstrate that this actually occurred in practice, which the NGA had not done. Following Electronic Art’s success before the Council of State the NGA has been quiet on this issue. Unsurprisingly though, this has resulted in parliamentary discourse, whereby it has been concluded that gambling legislation is not the optimal route to take for tackling loot boxes. Within this context the Netherlands is due to champion the inclusion of loot boxes as an unfair commercial practice within EU consumer protection legislation. Should this succeed, then the impact will clearly be felt beyond the Netherlands. Note that the Council of State’s decision does not preclude the possibility that other loot boxes do constitute games of chance, depending upon the specifics of the mechanism and how they are offered in the context of the games in which they are found.