The Dutch Advocate General issued an opinion opposing automatic reimbursement for gambling losses incurred with online operators in the Netherlands before regulation changed in 2021. The opinion means gamblers are not automatically entitled to refunds.
Operators may face claims over pre-2021 losses, but the opinion rejects automatic reimbursement.
The day’s most important stories, free. One email a day.
FDJ United has welcomed the legal clarity brought by a Supreme Court of the Netherlands ruling on gambling losses claimed before the Dutch market was re-regulated. On 3 July, De Rechtspraak ruled on gambling contracts entered into by players and operators before the remote market was re-regulated.
EU Advocate General Nicholas Emilíou said operators without a required national licence could have to repay customer losses. In a dispute involving a German customer and Tipico, the customer sought refunds for bets placed from 2013 to 2020, when Tipico held a Maltese licence but no German authorisation. The opinion is non-binding; the Court of Justice of the European Union will issue the final ruling.
Reportedly, Brazil's Bill 5.587/2026 proposes refunding money lost by bettors on illegal betting platforms in the country. The legislative process is presented as set to change the position of bettors who incurred such losses.
Reportedly, Federal deputy Jorge Goetten of the Republicans party has introduced Bill 5.587/2026, which would provide compensation to people who lost money on illegal betting platforms. The bill was submitted on Thursday 15 October.
Federal deputy Jorge Goetten of the Republicans party introduced Bill 5.587/2026 on Thursday 15 October, which would provide refunds to people who lost money on illegal betting platforms. The bill would create a compensation route for consumers who lost money on illegal betting platforms.
CJEU Advocate General Nicholas Emiliou has issued an opinion on Malta’s Bill 55 after an Austrian court asked whether the law complies with EU rules. Emiliou found the specific request inadmissible but said laws such as Bill 55 conflict with EU rules on recognising and enforcing judgments; his opinion is non-binding.