The Supreme Court of the Netherlands ruled July 3 that a provider’s lack of the Dutch license required under the Gambling Act does not, by itself, make an online gambling agreement void or voidable under Article 3:40 of the Dutch Civil Code. It answered preliminary questions in two pending player-loss cases against TSG Interactive Gaming Europe Limited and ElectraWorks Europe Limited.
One player seeks US$139,464.58 in net PokerStars losses incurred between 2006 and 2021; the other seeks EUR135,137 in PartyCasino losses incurred from August 2, 2020 through July 9, 2021. The court’s factual summary says a TSG sister company operated PokerStars when the first player opened an account in 2006 and TSG has offered the site since 2012. PartyCasino was operated by ElectraWorks Limited of Gibraltar until January 5, 2021, when ElectraWorks Europe Limited took over its activities, rights, and obligations.
Article 1(1)(a) of the Gambling Act prohibits an unlicensed provider from giving people an opportunity to participate in games of chance. The Supreme Court held that a provider’s factual and legal acts, including offering or entering into gambling agreements, can fall within that prohibition. It treated the provision as mandatory under Article 3:40(2) of the Civil Code, but held under Article 3:40(3) that violating it causes neither nullity nor voidability because the provision was not intended to affect the validity of legal acts made in violation of it. The absence of a license alone also does not make an agreement contrary to public order or good morals under Article 3:40(1). The Gambling Act instead provides administrative and criminal enforcement, and Dutch policy channels gambling demand toward a legal market rather than categorically prohibiting gambling.
The ruling resolves only the Article 3:40 invalidity theory, and the lower courts must now continue the two cases using the Supreme Court’s answers. The court did not answer a conditional question about restitution following invalidity because it rejected the invalidity premise. It expressly said such agreements may still be set aside for a defect of consent, such as mistake, and that the circumstances may support a tort claim. It did not decide the players’ unfair-commercial-practices claims. The court also held that compliance with the Netherlands Gambling Authority’s former enforcement-prioritization criteria does not change the result and that TSG’s claimed peer-to-peer role does not change it either.
An FDJ United spokesperson told SBC News the ruling provided important legal clarity. FDJ took control of Kindred, owner of the Unibet brand, on October 11, 2024, and sold Trannel International Limited at the end of that month; the buyer renamed it Risepoint Limited. FDJ United’s 2025 accounts say Dynamiet Nederland filed two Dutch collective actions in October and November 2025 against Risepoint Limited and Kindred Group Limited, alleging contract nullity based on unlicensed gambling services, tort liability, and unfair commercial practices. Neither Risepoint Limited nor Kindred Group Limited was a party to the Supreme Court’s two test cases, although Risepoint submitted written observations in both preliminary-question proceedings. The decision forecloses repayment based solely on Article 3:40 invalidity arising from the lack of a Dutch license, but it does not decide the other grounds pleaded in the separate cases.