Dutch iGaming Black Market Overtakes Regulated Sector in Revenue

The Dutch Gaming Authority, Kansspelautoriteit, released a report that indicated challenisation had fallen from 51% at the end of 2024 to 49% in 2025. This now means that the black market in the Netherlands is perceived as having overtaken the regulated iGaming sector, which will raise warning signs not just in the Netherlands, but across all of Europe. The Netherlands, which launched its regulated iGaming market back in 2021, was widely seen as one of the more innovative and structured models for other European countries.

Strict player protection measures, such as the nationwide Cruks self exclusion register and constraints on the marketing or promotional content for gamers under 25 were widely praised. However, revenue figures imply that the industry is slowly losing steam, though not through customer quantity. For licensed operators actually dominate the figures for registered gamblers, with around 94%. The problem is that the revenue figures point towards the black market taking advantage, meaning regulated sites are either losing high quality Dutch customers, or they are failing to stop Dutch gamers with registered accounts from also signing up to black market sites.

Dutch iGaming Woes and Declining Revenue

The figures presented in the KSA’s Annual Report 2025 indicate that the Dutch iGaming sector is very much on the rise. The legal gross gaming revenue was estimated at around €600 million for licensed operators, though the black market’s share was approximated at €617 million. It is a tricky situation for the regulator, as player participation is high, and awareness of regulated operators is strong in the Netherlands. There are only 30+ licensed casino and sportsbook operators in the Netherlands, including major firms like:

• BetMGM (21 Heads Up Ltd)
• 888 (Godwits Ltd)
• Bet365 (Hillside New Media Malta PLC)
• LeoVegas (LeoVegas Gaming PLC)
• Unibet (Optdeck Service Ltd)
• TonyBet (TonyBet OU)

In addition to the local Dutch operators, Holland Casino. Data from another report suggested that the licensed operators had around 500,000 monthly players, on average. Of that, 480,000 exclusively used licensed sites, 20,000 used both licensed and unlicensed, and 30,000 players only used the black market platforms. This data, of course, is an approximation as any figures directly relating to the black market are only estimations.

Players Opting for the Black Market

But what that implies is that the Dutch gambling authority is playing its cards right in winning over the general gaming public. It is just the smaller demographic of high rollers, the minority that is outspending the majority, who are opting for black market sites instead.

The high rollers are the market that pays off the best for casino operators. These are clients who make massive deposits, engage in high stakes wagers or gaming tournaments, and make huge revenue for the casinos. From the player’s side, these high end clients often get the full VIP treatment too. Where possible, they can get personal hosts to cater their gaming sessions, personalized promotional offers, and even expedited withdrawal service.

This is an area where the black market excels, as it is not constrained by the Dutch regulation, which limits these promotions and high stakes games through bans and strict caps.

Overregulation in the Dutch iGaming Sector?

The problem is that the Dutch regulated market, while growing, is not growing fast enough. It has reached a plateau, and this has changed the public uses the sites. They either play casually on the licensed sites and move to the offshore casinos to play higher stakes titles. Or, possibly they just use the sites until they reach a limit, and then continue playing on the black market sites that don’t uphold those limits. Either way, the money is seeping away from regulated sites – even if on paper they are looking at slightly higher engagement and activity figures.

The reasons may all boil down to those restrictions, no intrusive compliance requirements, and potentially better quality gaming experiences.

Deposit Limits and Gaming Restrictions

One of the biggest strengths from a responsible gambling point of view may actually be the defining clause that is losing players. Deposit limits are becoming more prominent across Europe, with Germany and Spain adopting them, and the UK Gambling Commission setting stricter deposit monitoring checks. In the Netherlands, monthly deposit limits are applied to two different player age brackets:

• Monthly €300 cap for players aged 18-24
• Monthly €700 cap for adults over 25

Even for the 92% who are licensed at regulated sites, their turnover at an online casino or sportsbook can only go so far, and if they want to play more, they cannot pick another regulated site.

Higher Compliance Standards

The Dutch iGaming operators have to comply with highly strict player protection measures. The KYC does not stop at ID verification, but it also includes affordability checks. Operators must also continuously monitor player behavior, flagging gamers who breach thresholds. These can definitely turn some customers away, especially if they are spending time or money beyond what the regulator deems healthy.

Compliance also extends to how operators can advertise their products. The Dutch gambling authority has long upheld a stricter set of rules for players aged 18-24, monitoring how gambling promos can spread and expose new groups to gambling. It recently banned share your bet functions, for these used social media platforms to promote sports betting.

Increasing Operator Tax and Declining Quality

The Netherlands does not tax players, but operators have to pay extremely high duty on their gross gaming revenue. This has steadily increased over the years, and now the Netherlands has among the highest gaming duty in the continent.

• 2024: 30.5% GGR
• 2025: 34.2% GGR
• 2026: 37.8% GGR

With additional levies, this can rise to a good 40% or higher, making it increasingly difficult for operators to protect their margins. When operators face tax or regulation pressures, they rarely soak up all the impacts without scaling back on their products. In other words, operators are forced to cut corners, either reducing their game portfolios, cutting back on bonuses, or doing the unthinkable and lowering the RTP of their games. For sports bettors, that is the equivalent of silently increasing the betting juice.

How it Affects the Rest of the World

This situation in the Netherlands is not an isolated case; it is part of a global trend of regulators putting pressure on iGaming operators. Jurisdictions around the world are adapting and reforming their licensing framework and gambling regulations. The authorities protecting local markets, like the Netherlands’ KSA, are trying to make gambling safer, block out unregulated operators, and do this while juggling with an important revenue stream for the government.

Spain is also making fixes to its iGaming sector, implementing AI player behavior monitoring systems and curbing gambling ads. In the UK, the Treasury recently increased the Remote Gaming Duty, up to a staggering 40%. It is also pushing for more player safety features, through affordability checks and strict promotion constraints.

It is a very difficult line for regulators to keep balanced, because when they lobby too hard for player protection and higher operator taxes, they are effectively making it a far more difficult market for operators to do business in. What is happening right now in the Netherlands will be watched by regulators from all over Europe, as they see how the KSA’s measures pay off, or whether they will run into a wall and have to make concessions.

What Comes Next for the Netherlands

The goal for the KSA is to reduce black market activity and to get players to stick to the regulated sites. That first problem may be easier to resolve, as it is just intensifying the enforcement tactics. Blocking payment providers, cracking down on affiliates, exposing domains or rogue operators, and spending more money to track player activity. If access to the black market is made more difficult, they can curb the money flowing out.

But this strategy requires lots of money and time, and it may not necessarily pay off. Because operators can launch new skin sites, buy alternative domains, and find new ways to infiltrate the market. The alternative would be to look at what is missing in the regulated market at the moment. It may mean making concessions, scaling back on the tax burdens and giving players more freedom – albeit at the expense of undermining the responsible gambling initiatives.

If they leave things as they are, the figures indicate that the situation could only get worse for the regulator, and so the Netherlands has to act, and act fast.