KSA Turns Up the Heat: Record Fines and a Sharper Crackdown in the Netherlands in 2025/2026

Over the past year, the Dutch gambling regulator Kansspelautoriteit (KSA) has become one of the most visible enforcement bodies in the European iGaming space. Yet it is not just the frequency of its actions that stands out — it is the nature of them.

In 2025/2026, KSA has clearly shifted gears. Enforcement is no longer limited to issuing warnings or targeting a handful of offshore operators. Instead, the regulator is escalating on multiple fronts: imposing record-breaking fines, expanding its focus to influencers and affiliates, and experimenting with new pressure mechanisms.

The result is a regulatory strategy that looks significantly more aggressive than in previous years — and far more ambitious.

Record Fine: €24.8 Million Sets a New Benchmark

The clearest signal of this shift came with a landmark penalty imposed on Novatech Solutions N.V., the company behind Qbet and 55bet.

The fine — €24.8 million — is the largest ever issued by KSA. This is not just another enforcement action. It represents a turning point. For the first time, the regulator has demonstrated a willingness to push financial penalties to the upper limits of what the law allows.

KSA itself hinted that the fine could have gone much further. In public comments, the regulator suggested that a €100 million penalty would better reflect the scale of the violations. However, under current rules, fines are capped at 10% of a company’s estimated global turnover.

This creates an obvious gap. Even headline-grabbing penalties may still be lower than what the regulator actually considers meaningful.

More Multi-Million Cases: Fortaprime and Starscream

The Novatech case did not happen in isolation. A series of additional enforcement actions confirms that large-scale fines are becoming the norm rather than the exception.

Fortaprime SRL, linked to brands such as AmonBet, SupraPlay, and GXSpins, was fined €1.7 million. Meanwhile, Starscream Limited — associated with RantCasino, AllStarzCasino, and SugarCasino — received a €4.2 million penalty.

In the latter case, KSA estimated that the operator generated more than €70 million in revenue from Dutch players in 2024 alone.

What is particularly notable is how these figures are calculated. The regulator increasingly relies on indirect indicators, including website traffic data, betting limits, and information obtained from payment providers.

This suggests a more data-driven approach to enforcement — one that allows KSA to act even when direct financial disclosures are unavailable.

From Casinos to Content: Influencers Become Targets

If record fines define the scale of enforcement, the expansion of targets defines its direction. In 2025/2026, KSA has moved beyond operators and begun targeting the broader ecosystem that supports offshore gaming.

A key milestone came with the case of a YouTube creator known as LeftlanePapi. With an audience of more than 55,000 subscribers, the influencer was fined €75,000 for publishing videos that showcased winnings on offshore casino websites.

The case is widely regarded as the first clear example of KSA directly penalising a content creator. The regulator’s position is unambiguous: promoting unlicensed gaming services is not just a marketing activity — it is a violation.

Warnings to Streamers: 48 Hours to Comply

The crackdown did not stop there. Several smaller streamers — including Stiefunspeelt, Turcos, and Buurtwachtt — received formal warnings from KSA. They were given just 48 hours to remove content featuring offshore operators.

Failure to comply would result in fines of €25,000 per person, potentially rising to €75,000 for repeated violations.

These cases are particularly interesting because they do not involve major influencers with massive reach. Instead, they suggest that KSA is willing to act even at the lower end of the content ecosystem.

This raises an important question: is the regulator aiming for maximum impact, or is it testing enforcement strategies on smaller targets first?

Pressure Model: Weekly Fines and Forced Exit

Another defining feature of KSA’s recent approach is the increasing use of conditional penalties. Operators are typically given a deadline to cease illegal activity. If they fail to comply, fines begin to accumulate — often on a weekly basis.

For example, the prediction website Polymarket was warned that it could face penalties of €420,000 per week, capped at €840,000, if it continued operating in the Netherlands.

Similarly, Instant Casino, operated by EOD Code SRL, was given four weeks to exit the market or face weekly fines of €280,000.

This “comply or pay” model is designed to force quick decisions. Rather than relying solely on one-time penalties, KSA is applying ongoing financial pressure.

A Bigger Net: Affiliates and Websites Under Scrutiny

Alongside influencers, affiliates and content websites are also increasingly exposed. The logic behind this expansion is clear. Offshore operators rely heavily on third-party traffic sources. Without affiliates, streamers, and review sites, their ability to reach players would be significantly reduced.

By targeting these channels, KSA is attempting to disrupt the entire acquisition funnel. At the same time, enforcement in this area appears selective. Some cases are pursued aggressively, while others remain untouched. The lack of transparency around these decisions leaves room for interpretation — including the possibility of external factors such as competitor reports.

The Key Weakness: Can KSA Actually Collect These Fines?

Despite the scale and visibility of enforcement, one critical issue remains unresolved. Collecting fines from offshore operators is extremely difficult.

Many of the companies targeted by KSA operate under licenses issued in jurisdictions such as Curaçao or Kahnawake. These structures place them outside the direct reach of Dutch authorities.

As a result, there are very few publicly confirmed cases of large offshore operators actually paying such fines. This creates a fundamental tension in KSA’s strategy. On one hand, penalties are increasing in size and frequency. On the other hand, their real-world impact may be limited if they are not enforced. The regulator is clearly aware of this challenge. However, solving it requires tools that go beyond traditional financial penalties.

What Has Changed in 2025/2026

Looking at the past year as a whole, several trends stand out:

• Fines are significantly larger

• Enforcement targets have expanded beyond operators

• Influencers and media channels are now directly exposed

• Conditional and recurring penalties are used more frequently

• Data from payment providers plays a bigger role

Why Now? What’s Driving KSA’s Enforcement Surge

The timing of KSA’s intensified enforcement is unlikely to be coincidental. Several structural factors appear to be pushing the regulator toward a more aggressive stance.

First, channelisation remains a persistent challenge. One of the core goals of the regulated market, launched in 2021, was to direct players toward licensed operators. However, offshore websites continue to attract a significant share of traffic. In many cases, they offer fewer restrictions, higher bonuses, and more flexible payment options — all of which remain appealing to users.

This creates a credibility issue for the regulated market. If licensed operators are heavily restricted while offshore competitors operate freely, the balance shifts in favour of the grey market. From a regulatory perspective, this undermines the entire framework.

Second, there is growing pressure at the European level to tighten control over illegal gaming activity. While enforcement is handled nationally, the broader direction across the EU is clear: regulators are expected to take a more active role in limiting unlicensed offerings.

Third, KSA now has better tools than it did just a few years ago. Access to payment data, improved traffic analytics, and greater experience with enforcement mechanisms allow for more confident action. The regulator is no longer operating in the dark — it has enough information to make informed estimates and build cases.

Finally, there is a signalling element. High-profile fines and public enforcement actions serve not only as punishment, but also as deterrence. Even if not all penalties are ultimately collected, they shape market behaviour by increasing perceived risk.

Taken together, these factors help explain why 2025/2026 marks a turning point. KSA is not just reacting to individual violations — it is responding to broader structural pressures.

How KSA Compares: A More Aggressive Regulator?

KSA’s recent moves look especially sharp when placed against the broader European backdrop. Regulators across the region are tackling offshore gambling, but not all of them are doing it in the same way.

In the UK, for instance, enforcement still leans heavily toward licensed operators. Most penalties are tied to compliance issues within the regulated market, while offshore activity is addressed more indirectly.

Germany has introduced strict rules and technical controls, yet enforcement is often perceived as fragmented due to its federal structure.

Sweden, meanwhile, has taken action against unlicensed activity, but typically operates within a more constrained penalty framework.

A case from March 2026 shows how far apart these approaches can be. The Swedish Gambling Authority (SGA) looked into SPRIBE after its games were found on several unlicensed operator websites. The issue was treated as a serious breach, and the company admitted that the exposure was caused by a geotargeting error that was later fixed.

Even so, the outcome was modest. The regulator issued a warning and a fine of 5,000 SEK — roughly €466. The explanation lies in the structure of Swedish law. Penalties are tied to revenue generated within the local licensed market, and SPRIBE’s reported revenue in Sweden for 2024 was only around €7,100.

The gap is too wide to overlook. One regulator imposes a €24.8 million penalty, while another classifies a breach as serious and settles on a fine of just a few hundred euros.

This is less about who is stricter and more about how enforcement is designed. Different frameworks lead to very different outcomes — not only on paper, but in their actual impact on the market.

At the same time, KSA’s approach appears more direct and more visible. The regulator is actively naming companies, targeting multiple layers of the market, and using large headline figures to reinforce its message. In that sense, KSA is positioning itself as one of the most assertive regulators in Europe — even if the long-term effectiveness of this strategy remains an open question.

What Comes Next: Five Likely Scenarios

If KSA continues on its current trajectory, several developments are likely.

1. Payment Disruption as a Core Tool

The regulator is already using payment data for enforcement. The next logical step is direct intervention — restricting transactions between Dutch players and offshore operators.

2. Deeper Cooperation with Websites

Cases involving YouTube creators suggest that KSA may increasingly work with content websites to remove or restrict gaming-related material.

3. Cross-Border Enforcement Efforts

International cooperation remains a weak point, but it is likely to become a priority as enforcement scales up.

4. Tighter Rules for Licensed Operators

To strengthen the regulated market, KSA may introduce stricter marketing and compliance requirements for licensed companies.

5. Technical Blocking Measures

If fines continue to have a limited effect, more direct solutions — such as ISP blocking — could be considered.

Conclusion: Stronger Enforcement, Unresolved Questions

KSA’s enforcement strategy in 2025/2026 is clearly more aggressive than in previous years. Record fines, new targets, and evolving tactics all point to a regulator that is determined to reduce offshore activity. At the same time, significant challenges remain — particularly when it comes to cross-border enforcement and the actual collection of penalties.

This leaves the Dutch market at a crossroads. KSA is sending a strong message. The question is whether that message alone is enough — or whether more fundamental changes will be needed to achieve the desired impact.