Dutch Court Rejects Automatic Refund Claims for Unlicensed Gambling Losses

Court says contracts stay valid

The Netherlands' Supreme Court gave its decision on 3 July after reviewing two cases. Both cases asked the same question. Did gambling contracts become invalid because the operators had no Dutch licence?

Judges ruled the contracts stay valid under Dutch civil law. Because of that, players cannot ask for refunds based only on the missing licence. The court said the Dutch Gambling Act bans companies from offering gambling without a licence. Still, the law does not cancel contracts already made with players.

Instead, the law lets regulators and criminal authorities take action. It does not tell courts to order automatic refunds.

Two operators faced player claims

The cases involved PokerStars operator TSG Interactive Gaming Europe and PartyCasino operator Electraworks Europe. Both companies are based in Malta. One player said he lost $139,464.58 while using PokerStars between 2006 and 2021. Another player said he lost €135,137 on PartyCasino from August 2020 to July 2021.

Both players argued their contracts should not count because the operators lacked Dutch licences. Earlier this year, courts in Amsterdam and Noord-Holland asked the Supreme Court for guidance. They wanted to know if Dutch law made those contracts invalid.

Judges explain the ruling

The court said Dutch law bans unlicensed gambling services — but it does not remove existing contracts. Judges also said the contracts do not break public order or public morals.

Dutch law does not ban gambling. Instead, it pushes players toward licensed casinos with player protection rules. PokerStars also argued that it mainly matched players with each other. The court said that point did not change the result.

The ruling means:

• Contracts remain valid.

• Missing licences do not guarantee refunds.

• Other legal claims may still move forward.

Other legal options remain

The ruling does not end every case against unlicensed operators. The court said players may still bring other legal claims. For example, they may argue the operator acted unfairly or that the agreement had legal problems.

Beyond these two disputes, the ruling may shape many future cases. Operators facing similar claims could now use this decision in their defence. The legal fight is not over — but one important refund argument is now gone.