Conclusion: Gambling agreements aren't null and void
On November 28, 2025, the Attorney General advised the Supreme Court to answer the first preliminary question negatively
Key questions answered in the negative: Gambling Agreements aren't null and void
Did the Gaming Act initially have the effect of affecting the validity of legal acts that were contrary to it?
No, according to Advocate General Lindenbergh in his conclusions.
Does this provide the necessary clarity?
The Attorney General has concluded that the key question – namely, whether civil law sanctions of nullity are provided for in the Gambling Act – must be answered in the negative. The conclusion holds that it is of decisive importance that the Gambling Act never intended to have this effect under civil law.
The text of the Act, its legislative history, its purpose and its structure provide no indication that the legislature intended the Gambling Act to prohibit the performance of legal acts. The legislator intended to prohibit only the factual acts, such as ‘providing the opportunity’.
Another important point, as also indicated in our previous publication, is that the Gaming Act is of an administrative and criminal law nature and that there was no room for a severe civil law sanction such as nullity, nor was this intended by the legislator.
Such a sanction could, in fact, have the undesirable side-effect of undermining the very purpose of the law, namely channelization It could, in fact, be more appealing for consumers to use unlicensed providers, given the possibility of being able to claim back any losses ‘easily’ through legal channels.
Attorney General leaves room for different opinion by Supreme Court
The conclusion of the Attorney General is an opinion to the Supreme Court and therefore not yet a definitive answer to the preliminary questions.
Now that the most important question has been answered in the negative, the legal conclusion is that the other questions are no longer relevant and will therefore also be answered in the negative in that respect.
If one reads the conclusion carefully, the Attorney General also hints at an alternative line of reasoning, namely that the civil law sanction of nullity might indeed be provided for in the Gambling Act. In that case, the Attorney General answers the questions referred for a preliminary ruling in the affirmative, since the Gambling Act would not have lost its purpose in such circumstances.
Questions about this topic?
If you have any questions or require assistance in relation to the above article, please contact us.
Our firm assists various gaming companies (both land-based and online) in handling player claims. We also advise on strategic choices that you, as an entrepreneur, need to make.
