Dutch Gambling Regulator Outlines Big Tech Approach on Illegal Ads

Michel Groothuizen, chairman of the Netherlands Gambling Authority (Kansspelautoriteit), set out the regulator’s approach to Big Tech platforms over illegal gambling advertising in a blog post published 2026年10月14日, five years after the Netherlands legalized its online gambling market and the first licence holders launched.

The post, titled “Verleiden of vechten? Of allebei?” (“Seduce or fight? Or both?”; quotations from it appear here in English translation), states that the illegal market has by no means disappeared, even though study after study indicates that around 90% of Dutch online gamblers play exclusively with legal operators. In money terms, Groothuizen wrote, the picture is very different: for every euro gambled with legal operators, one euro ends up in the illegal circuit. Enforcement in that circuit is therefore the authority’s top priority, he wrote.

Fining illegal providers has sent a clear signal about what is and is not permitted but has barely been effective when it comes to collection, he wrote, describing the experience as frustrating. For the past 18 months the KSA has therefore pursued a parallel track, he wrote: frustrating the illegal supply itself by making illegal operators harder to find and ensuring that payments can no longer be made to or through them. That work is not finished, he wrote, but the direction is clear.

Calls to Fine Big Tech

In the 2026年9月 parliamentary committee debate, VVD member of parliament Bart Bikkers argued for a firm approach in which the Kansspelautoriteit would fine the big tech companies, known in European jargon as VLOPs (Very Large Online Platforms), on the grounds that they are largely responsible for the visibility of the illegal supply, Groothuizen wrote. Justin Franssen, a well-known gambling lawyer, had also said from Lisbon that the KSA should act more strictly against Big Tech.

Those calls sound tough, Groothuizen wrote, and he would like to be a tough regulator: he described himself as receptive to the image of a sheriff stepping through the saloon’s swing doors with a drawn revolver to round up wrongdoers and chase them, tarred and feathered, out of town so that order and calm return. Fining tech companies that facilitate illegal activity, he wrote, is a notch more intractable and a matter of much longer breath, because a miss carries consequences.

“A sheriff who shoots and misses, or one who turns out to be firing a cap gun, gives the bandits a free pass,” he wrote.

Big Tech earns enormous amounts of money from advertising by illegal gambling operators in the Netherlands, in Europe and worldwide, Groothuizen wrote, calling it an industry worth billions that contributes significantly to the platforms’ profitability. Voluntarily giving that up, or imposing substantial restrictions on themselves, runs directly against their revenue model, he wrote, yet that is what the KSA demands of them, preferably amicably and, if necessary, by force.

Grounds for Action and the Risks of Court

The KSA can gather sufficient convincing evidence that these companies facilitate prohibited activities in the Netherlands and elsewhere in Europe, Groothuizen wrote. Advertising for illegal gambling confronts users on all social platforms, he wrote, and ads explicitly targeting vulnerable people who have registered in exclusion registers in various European countries, or ads also targeting children under 18, are no exception and easy to find. Nor is it an occasional one: they number in the thousands, if not hundreds of thousands.

Both Dutch national law and the European Digital Services Act offer ample grounds to punish such behavior, Groothuizen wrote, while noting that under the DSA the decision lies with the European Commission, to which the KSA can only supply the grounds.

Having a case does not mean it must be brought now, he wrote: a lost procedure is worse than one not yet started, and a fine is a means, not a goal. Starting a procedure, national or, via the Commission, European, means confronting an opponent with practically inexhaustible financial resources that, experience in other dossiers shows, is willing to fight to the highest court while throwing sand in the gears, so that a definitive judgment could sit five years away, with no certainty the court would side with the regulator across the board. Groothuizen wrote that he is very pleased with the legal quality of his KSA colleagues, but every piece of evidence would be litigated and every position contested, because the interests are large: the outcome is uncertain, while the long duration of a legal procedure is at least a certainty.

Dublin Talks and a European White List

Against that background, the KSA is also trying to do business with the VLOPs, Groothuizen wrote, seeking agreements that would bring the platforms to voluntarily behave better and take responsibility. Some adjustments that matter greatly to the regulator are a trifle for the platforms, he wrote, while other measures demand much of them, technically or financially; the idea is to pick the low-hanging fruit together and find a shared path.

The KSA and a number of European regulators met with Google and Meta in Dublin in the spring of 2026, where the companies have their European headquarters, Groothuizen wrote. On both sides of the table, he wrote, it was clear that litigation was the alternative to cooperation, and that in parallel the two sides were moving between case-building and a constructive relationship. A joint task force is now working, together with Google, on a white list of all legal operators in the EU; all other operators would then by definition be in violation and could be blocked by Google. The hope is that this closes one main tap, he wrote, adding that there are surely more main taps.

The big tech companies are not permanent allies, Groothuizen wrote: their interests often run directly counter to what the regulator wants from them. If the KSA finds that the VLOPs make insufficient efforts, or are not sufficiently effective despite voluntary efforts, the legal path remains open, he wrote, adding that seducing and fighting are not an either-or question and can happen at the same time. Western governments, and the European Commission in particular, perform a complicated dance with Big Tech across a multitude of dossiers, from dropshipping through illegal medicines to vapes, sometimes seducing and sometimes forcing the platforms toward socially desirable behavior, he wrote.

If agreements with Big Tech yield too little, the KSA will not hesitate to enter the arena against one of them, Groothuizen wrote, closing the post with a pledge: “Hold us to that.”