Gambling case update: preliminary questions referred to Supreme Court

In our earlier article we told you about the possibility of reclaiming gambling losses at casinos. We also reported to you that in June 2024 the courts of Amsterdam and North Holland announced their intention to submit (preliminary) questions to the Supreme Court. After the plaintiffs and the casinos responded, those questions have now been submitted. In this article you can read more about the latest state of affairs.

Why these questions to the Supreme Court?

The courts are putting these (preliminary) questions to the Supreme Court because legal inequality has arisen. This is because different courts ruled differently on the question of whether the casinos must repay the gambling loss. By answering the questions, the Supreme Court should provide clarity. Parts of the questions previously formulated by the courts in June 2024 have been modified. The most recent press release from the Courts on the issue reiterates the reason why the questions are being referred to the Supreme Court:

“So far, several courts have issued conflicting rulings on this issue. A number of cases of gamblers at unlicensed online casinos are also pending at the Amsterdam District Court and the North Holland District Court. In their ruling, the preliminary judgment is that agreements made with unlicensed providers are void. But before making a final ruling, both courts want to ask questions of the Supreme Court (so-called preliminary questions) in order to get clarity. This is to know faster whether gamblers at unlicensed providers can recover their losses.

By doing so, the courts want to avoid numerous more cases, possibly including appeals, in which the exact same legal question has to be answered.”

The questions presented to the Supreme Court are as follows:

1. Did the Wok (Gambling Act) originally have the intent to affect the validity of legal acts contrary thereto?

2. Has the purport – after initially being present – been lost, under the influence of social developments and/or in view of the enforcement policy of Ksa (Gambling Authority)? Should a distinction be made here between providers of games of chance that were on the ‘gray list’ of the Ksa and other providers?

3. Is a gaming agreement between a consumer residing in the Netherlands and a provider of games of chance on the Internet that does not have a license within the meaning of the Wok a void agreement within the meaning of Section 3:40 of the Dutch Civil Code?

4. Does it still matter for the answer to question 3 whether the gaming provider met the Ksa’s prioritization criteria?

5. If the answer to question 3 is affirmative, what are the legal consequences? Is a claim for repayment of the loss suffered on grounds of undue payment admissible?

The following question was added by the Amsterdam court:

6. In answering the above questions, is it relevant that a gaming provider, such as TSG, claims to limit its services to offering players an online opportunity to play against each other? And if so, does that affect what a player can recover from the gaming provider as undue payment?

Provisional opinion of courts

The preliminary judgments given earlier by the courts of Amsterdam and Noord-Holland on those preliminary questions are positive for the plaintiffs, in the sense that the agreements concluded with the unlicensed casinos are void according to these courts. Whether repayment on grounds of undue payment should follow from that is a question that will not be answered at this time. That is up to the Supreme Court.

It is not yet known when the Supreme Court will answer the questions. It is expected to take several weeks to months. We will continue to keep an eye on this.

Contact

We would be happy to help you determine if we can help you recover your gambling losses once the Supreme Court clarifies. If you are interested in doing so, please send us an mail . We will then contact you. You can also reach us by phone.