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 concluded that the most important question, namely whether civil sanctions of nullity were included in the Gaming Act, was answered in the negative. In the conclusion, it is considered decisive that the Gaming Act never had this civil law intention.
The text of the Act, its legislative history, its objective, and its legal system offer no indication that the legislator intended the Gaming Act to prohibit the performance of legal acts. The legislator only intended to prohibit actual 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 have the undesirable side effect of undermining the purpose of the law, namely channeling. It could actually make it more attractive for consumers to participate with unlicensed providers, given the possibility of being able to ‘easily’ claim back any losses through legal action.
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 you read the conclusion carefully, the Attorney General also hints at an alternative line of reasoning, namely if the civil law sanction of nullity were to be included in the Gaming Act. In that case, the Attorney General would answer the preliminary questions in the affirmative, as the Gaming Act would not have lost its purpose in that case.
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.
