In a decisive step towards amending the country’s Remote Gambling Act (KOA), the Netherlands has put forward new measures aimed at enhancing player protection within the online betting sector. Minister for Legal Protection, Franc Weerwind, first introduced the changes in December, leading to the official submission to the European Commission on February 28. A “standstill” period is now effective until May 29, during which the European Commission and other member states will review the proposed amendments.
The amendments put forth are designed to augment the KOA, in effect from October 1, 2021. One significant change requires more rigorous monitoring of players who deposit in excess of €350 per month. Furthermore, to discourage preset betting behaviors, there’s a proposal where players specify their bet limits in an empty input field rather than selecting from predefined amounts that could influence their decision.
Additional modifications proposed include an initiative where operators must establish a “contact point” to reach out to players exhibiting potential signs of risky gambling behaviors. The suggested contact thresholds are set at over €350 per month, €87.50 per week, or €12.50 per day for players aged 24 or above. For younger adults, aged between 18 and 24, lower thresholds at €150 per month, €37.50 per week, and €5.35 per day are suggested.
Another key amendment aimed at enhancing transparency stipulates that all bets, winnings, and losses must primarily be represented in euros. However, in scenarios involving poker, for practical reasons, these could be displayed in US dollars.
The draft amendments identify three main areas for improvement. These include how gambling information is presented to players, the management of high play limits, and, crucially, the actual implementation of these gaming limits. The accompanying document underscores that without these reforms, there is an inadequate buffer against excessive gambling and the risks of addiction.
The documentation acknowledges that while these changes will escalate the pressures and obligations on gambling operators, they are deemed essential for bolstering player safety and emphasizing the hazards associated with gambling.
Peter-Paul de Goeij, chairman of the Dutch Online Gambling Association (NOGA), remarked that while the measures underscore the importance of a duty of care, it is vital that legal gambling remains an attractive option that doesn’t deter players.
Since the KOA’s enforcement, the Netherlands has embarked on a comprehensive regulatory overhaul targeting the industry. The Kansspelautoriteit (KSA), the Netherlands’ regulatory authority, has been vigilant against illegal operators providing services to Dutch consumers. Recently, the KSA enforced a record fine of €19.6 million on Gammix for operating without a license, underlining the authority’s commitment to protect Dutch gamblers from illegal offerings.
René Jansen, chairman of the KSA, underscored the necessity to shield Dutch players, indicating that providers who flout regulations often exhibit negligible consideration towards the players’ welfare, including failing to institute rigorous age verification processes. The KSA remains resolute in sanctioning such operators, he added.
The Dutch regulatory landscape is likely to undergo further changes following a recent judicial decision that has called the country’s lottery monopoly into question. Last week, the East Brabant District Court ruled in favor of two gaming operators whose license applications had been unceremoniously dismissed by the KSA. The monopoly, held by Nederlandse Loterij, was deemed to be inconsistent with European Union service provisions.
By ruling out that a monopolistic approach to gambling does not align with public interest, particularly regarding player protection, the court has pointed to a potentially major shift in the future of the Dutch gambling industry. It implies that the current policy lacks horizontal consistency, given that the KOA permits single licensing to conduct lower-risk, land-based gambling activities but does not extend the same for more addiction-prone offerings.
