A preliminary ruling by the Supreme Court of the Netherlands has quashed the ambitions of players seeking refunds from operators previously active in the country without a license. The court rejected arguments that the country’s 2021 gambling legislation made gambling agreements concluded before that date illegal. As a result, several substantial player claims now face a dead end.
Bettors May Still Pursue Reimbursements
The Supreme Court’s decision overturns an emerging precedent. Many lower courts would automatically declare gambling contracts null and void and order providers to reimburse the full net loss. This ruling relates to two regional cases by players against Malta-based operators. Both individuals lost between $140,000 and $155,000 before 2021.
The two bettors argued that their contracts with the operators were invalid, making them eligible to recover their losses. However, the Supreme Court ruled otherwise. It concluded that the prohibition was intended to prevent people from gambling with illegal providers, but that prohibition did not affect the contract itself.
While this ruling is a significant blow to player reimbursement claims, it does not outright invalidate them. Instead, claimants will have to search for alternative legal justification to back their stance. The ruling also means that a massive forced settlement for operators is now much less likely, which should help stabilize the Dutch market.
The ECJ Has Largely Refused to Interfere
Despite the development in the Netherlands, player reimbursement claims remain a pressing issue across many European jurisdictions. In Germany and Austria, conflicting rulings have prompted some courts to bring the matter before the European Court of Justice (ECJ). However, the ECJ has consistently ruled that such disputes must be resolved in accordance with local laws.
Reimbursement disputes have also caused tensions between Malta and other EU countries. A controversial Maltese law shields local operators from liability in foreign courts. However, Advocate General Nicholas Emiliou recently noted that the measure was inconsistent with EU rules on cross-border enforcement and did not rely on legitimate legal principles.
Even the UK has recently gotten involved. In March, the UK High Court of Justice oversaw a similar case, ruling that arrangements between the two parties remained valid even though they were tied to unlicensed betting activity. While the Netherlands case also favors operators, reimbursement disputes are unlikely to subside entirely as bettors seek other avenues.