Etienne van Namen: “Operators are fighting multiple battles on multiple chess boards”

Etienne van Namen, Founding Partner and Attorney at Law at Westhoff Van Namen, joins Casino Guru News to discuss the fast-evolving Dutch gambling market, where shifting regulations and rising compliance demands are reshaping the landscape for licensed operators. In this conversation, he highlights how overreaching rules may be driving players toward offshore sites—and stresses the need for a regulatory framework that protects consumers without alienating them. Read the full interview below.

Q: You've worked extensively with regulated entities in the Netherlands, particularly around securing licenses. What would you say are the most persistent challenges companies face in obtaining and maintaining a license in the Dutch market?

One of the most persistent challenges is the sheer complexity and rigor of the licensing process. The Dutch Gambling Authority (KSA) requires a complete and Dutch-language application, backed by extensive documentation—ranging from addiction prevention policies to financial guarantees and IT audits.

But beyond the procedural hurdles, the real challenge lies in maintaining compliance post-licensing. Operators must continuously meet high standards in responsible gambling, data protection, and financial transparency. Even minor infractions—such as delayed intervention in cases of problematic gambling behaviour—can jeopardize license renewal.

Probably the hardest part for license holders is to adept to the political environment in the Netherlands. The continuous changes to legislation (bad or good) make it hard to operate in an already very competitive market.

At Westhoff Van Namen, we’ve guided numerous clients through this process, ensuring not just successful applications but sustainable compliance strategies and are also helping clients with license renewal.

Q: A lot has changed since the launch of the regulated gambling market in the Netherlands. In your view, have these changes been mostly beneficial, or are there areas where the regulator and lawmakers should reassess their approach?

The introduction of the Remote Gambling Act (KOA) in 2021 was a landmark moment. It brought much-needed structure and consumer protection to a previously prohibited market. However, the implementation has not been without friction. For instance, the change in duty-of-care obligations by parliament has created uncertainty for operators and have contra effects. For instance the limits since October 2024 have a counterproductive effect in my opinion. And to be honest, that is not only my opinion but is also shown in data.

The adjustment was implemented to protect the consumers that need protection the most. And exactly those consumers that are the least protected because of the legislation itself, because the consumers went abroad to operators outside the Netherlands without the same level of player and consumer protection. From a perspective of good governance and legal certainty the specific legislation makes no sense, even when the intention of the lawmakers is good, the results show us otherwise.

Q: We've seen increased regulatory focus on gambling advertisements, particularly those promoting unlicensed operators. Why do you think such ads continue to appear, despite existing safeguards? Is it due to a lack of regulatory awareness, or is it more often a deliberate circumvention of the rules?

This is a multifaceted issue. In some cases, it’s a matter of enforcement lag—unlicensed operators are acting faster than regulators or digital platforms can respond. But more often, it’s a deliberate circumvention of the rules of the unlicensed operators. Unlicensed operators exploit loopholes in ad targeting, domain masking, and affiliate networks to reach Dutch consumers.

That said, the KSA has made significant strides in tightening controls, including issuing cease-and-desist orders and fines. However, enforcement alone isn’t enough. A coordinated effort involving ad tech platforms, payment providers, and ISPs is essential to truly disrupt these networks.

Q: The KSA has issued several high-profile penalties against illegal operators. However, critics question whether these fines are truly enforceable. In your legal opinion, are these penalties more symbolic than practical, or do they carry real weight?

While some critics view these fines as symbolic, we’ve seen firsthand that they carry real legal and reputational weight. The KSA’s penalty decisions are often grounded in detailed investigations and are being upheld in Dutch courts. That said, enforceability can be challenging when operators are based offshore.

The real legal questions are currently being answered by the Dutch Supreme court in that regard and how the Dutch government acted in the past, in case of regulation and enforcement and if that makes a legal difference or not.

At Westhoff Van Namen, we’ve advised clients on both sides—those seeking to challenge fines and those aiming to avoid them. I cannot go in too much detail but we’re looking forward to the answers of the Dutch Supreme Court.

Q: Despite a strong regulatory framework, the KSA has acknowledged that a significant share of online gambling revenue may still be going to offshore operators. Why do you think this is the case? And what legal or regulatory reforms would you suggest to better protect the channeling objective of Dutch gambling law?

Despite a robust regulatory framework, offshore operators continue to attract Dutch players due to aggressive marketing, broader game offerings, and fewer restrictions. The channeling objective—steering players toward licensed platforms—requires more than just enforcement and starts in our opinion with creating a viable business landscape.

The noted problems of the Dutch market are in our opinion the result of ongoing changes to the legislation, high competition not only between licensed operators but also with unlicensed operators and business models that are under pressure because of a tax increase that has never be seen before.

Most regulated markets (not only in gambling) can mature by legal certainty and stability. Lawmakers and regulators are underestimating the impact of (large or small) changes to legislation or tax increases. We should not forget that this market is only (4 years old at the moment) which is relatively young.

As mentioned before the limits that were implemented earlier made consumers that wanted to play more, go to off shore operators. If we want the market to mature we should not only protect the players but also the licensed operators by creating a viable business model. The licensed operators are fighting multiple battles on multiple chess boards. To provide licensed operators a good opportunity to have fair competition would imply changes on multiple aspects of the Dutch market.

These legal or regulatory reforms to protect the channeling objective would to reverse the deposit limits and create more marketing opportunities instead of make it near impossible to compete with unlicensed operators.

Another aspect could be reforms on gambling tax. The first thing that comes to mind is to reverse the gambling tax increase so that the level of gambling tax is back in line with what the operators were expecting back in 2021 or 2020 when the decisions were made to step into the Dutch market. Another reform would be looking into tax changes that allows operators to reclaim paid VAT tax in the Netherlands. The Dutch tax system makes the cost for operating a gambling business 21% more expensive because of the lack of the possibility to claim back VAT the operators have paid to third parties.

Image credit: Casino Guru News