Dutch licensed operators sue Meta over illegal gambling ads — and parliament backs fines

On 28 September 2026 VNLOK, the association of licensed Dutch online gambling operators, served a summons on Meta before the Amsterdam District Court over what it calls the large-scale distribution of illegal gambling advertising on Facebook and Instagram. It completes the legal procedure the association announced in June.

What VNLOK is asking for

The claim rests on the EU Digital Services Act. VNLOK asks the court to establish that Meta is not complying with its DSA obligations, and to order the company to take measures that better prevent illegal gambling advertising aimed at Dutch consumers. The emphasis is on prevention: VNLOK wants Meta to act before illegal ads are placed, not to remove them after complaints.

Its argument is built on its own monitoring. According to VNLOK’s research, as reported by Emerce, more than 90% of the gambling adverts it examined on Facebook came from illegal gambling sites, and Meta removed only 11% of the illegal ones in May and 15% in June. Because such adverts are often online only briefly, the association argues, removal after the fact routinely comes too late to matter.

VNLOK is explicit that Meta is only the first target. Illegal operators also reach Dutch players through search results, misleading redirects and Telegram channels. “If an illegal operator is removed via one platform, the same operator pops up again via another channel,” VNLOK chairman Björn Fuchs said (our translation).

Parliament moves the same day

The timing was deliberate. On 29 September the House of Representatives adopted a motion by Bart Bikkers (VVD), co-signed with CDA and PRO, asking the government to write into gambling law that a platform which keeps showing illegal gambling advertising after repeated removal requests itself commits an offence — one the Kansspelautoriteit could sanction with a fine or an order subject to penalty payments. The motion notes that the regulator already sends Meta thousands of removal requests a month without structural results. State Secretary Claudia van Bruggen responded positively.

The Kansspelautoriteit itself was more cautious about the lawsuit, telling de Volkskrant that litigation is not the most effective route and that it is the illegal operators who break the rules — but adding that Meta is “not untouchable” and “not doing enough”.

A European pattern

This is the third front in weeks. Poland has asked the European Commission to fine Meta €250 million over scam ads and is in an open measurement dispute with the company over their scale. Google has tightened certification for every gambling advertiser. And now a private DSA claim by licensed operators sits alongside a parliamentary push to make continued display of an illegal ad a platform’s own offence. The direction is consistent: from notice-based removal toward platform responsibility for what keeps running.

What this means for you

For licensed operators, the Dutch case is a template worth studying. The claim is not built on anecdotes but on structured monitoring over months — volumes, share of illegal ads, removal rates, time online. That is the evidence that makes a DSA argument, a regulator complaint or a liability motion possible, and it is the evidence most operators never collect because they report ads one at a time and move on.

The same applies to brands whose names are used in illegal or scam advertising. If platform liability for repeated non-removal becomes law, the question in every dispute will be simple: was the platform notified, when, and what did it do? The operators who can answer it with their own records will be the ones who benefit.