Dutch MPs pulled in opposite directions on gambling policy during a 3 September parliamentary debate, with nine members questioning State Secretary for Justice Claudia van Bruggen on advertising limits, the minimum playing age and enforcement against unlicensed sites. No new measures were agreed, and van Bruggen declined to move immediately on the demand that has the broadest political support: raising the minimum age for online gambling to 21.
The debate set out the positions each bloc will carry into the next round of Dutch gambling legislation. It also showed how little agreement there is on the central question of whether tighter rules protect players or push them towards operators with no licence at all.
Where the parties stand
Mirjam Bikker of ChristenUnie pressed for a wider ban on gambling advertising and faster action against illegal websites, and questioned why the increase in the minimum age to 21 has been delayed.
Mohammed Mohandis of Progressive Netherlands (PRO) took a different route, asking for annual performance indicators so parliament can measure whether gambling policy works rather than argue about it in the abstract. He also pointed at the payment layer, suggesting the government target the financial intermediaries that process transactions for black-market sites. That approach mirrors enforcement work elsewhere, including India’s tracing of $7.4bn in illegal online betting payments.
The sharpest line came from Diederik van Dijk of the SGP, who wants the online gambling act withdrawn entirely and a total advertising ban covering online gambling, land-based casinos and lotteries. He also objects to the state’s own position in the market through Holland Casino and Nederlandse Loterij. Van Dijk framed the government’s approach as treating the symptom:
“Turn off the tap” rather than “buying better mops.”
D66’s Joost Sneller, speaking for a ruling coalition party, accepted that re-regulating the online market has caused harm but warned against pushing regulation too far. Sneller invoked the waterbed effect, the argument that demand suppressed in the licensed market resurfaces in the unlicensed one rather than disappearing.
The state secretary holds the line
Van Bruggen rejected an immediate move to a minimum age of 21, saying the case has to be made that a higher limit reduces harm rather than driving younger players to the black market. She put the size of the market at 500,000 Dutch citizens gambling online each month, a figure she used to argue against withdrawing the legal offer altogether.
She also defended a role for legal advertising, on the basis that players need to be able to identify which operators hold a Dutch licence. That position sits directly against the SGP’s call for a blanket ban and against ChristenUnie’s push for broader restrictions, and it is the point on which the coalition and the opposition are furthest apart.
What is actually moving
Two files are progressing regardless of the disagreement in the chamber.
DNS blocking
The government is preparing powers to block access to illegal gambling websites at the DNS level, with consultations scheduled for early 2027. That timeline puts any enforcement effect well beyond next year, which is the substance behind Bikker’s complaint about speed.
Nederlandse Loterij
The possible privatisation of Nederlandse Loterij is under study by the Research and Documentation Centre (WODC), the research arm of the Ministry of Justice and Security. Mohandis raised it in the debate; no decision has been taken. The outcome matters beyond the Netherlands, because a sale would change the shape of one of the larger state-controlled lottery assets in Europe, in a period when consolidation is reshaping other European gambling markets.
What operators should watch
Nothing in the debate changes the rules licensed operators work under today. What it does is mark out the range of what is politically possible: at one end a full advertising ban and repeal of the online act, at the other a coalition position that keeps the licensed market intact and tries to squeeze the unlicensed one through enforcement.
The age-21 question is the one to track. Van Bruggen has not ruled it out, she has asked for evidence, and the parties pushing for it are not going away. If the analysis she has requested supports a higher limit, the measure moves from delayed to drafted, and operators lose access to a segment of players they can currently serve legally. The DNS blocking consultation in early 2027 will be the next point at which the government has to put a concrete text in front of the chamber.
Source: Ministry of Justice and Security
