Is Kansspelautoriteit the Best Regulator in Europe?

Uncompromising Enforcement

In recent months, Kansspelautoriteit has become a frequent topic in industry media. The reason? A series of consistent actions targeting illegal operators as well as licensed companies that have broken the law. The regulator doesn’t stop at declarations or warnings – it acts swiftly, decisively, and without leniency.

In 2025, KSA fined Gamusoft LP €840,000 for allowing Dutch players access to the illegal platform CSGOFAST.com. Sarah Eternal S.R.L. received a total penalty of €900,000 for failing to verify players’ age and for accepting cryptocurrencies as a payment method. Winbet and Freebitco.in have also come under fire. Even licensed operators are not immune – Unibet paid €400,000 for allowing individuals registered in CRUKS to gamble during the 2022 World Cup.

These actions suggest that KSA is not only safeguarding the integrity of the licensing system but is also actively working to limit black-market operations. Compared to many European jurisdictions where illegal entities operate virtually without consequences, the Netherlands appears to be a model worth emulating. What stands out is the regulator’s firm approach toward foreign operators – the lack of a license leads to immediate risk of penalties, regardless of the company’s size.

Fines Alone are Not Enough

However, the number of fines issued isn’t sufficient to declare any regulator the best in Europe. What matters is not only the enforcement of laws but also the ability to implement them effectively while maintaining a balance between protecting players, supporting the legal market, and reducing the grey economy. And this is where doubts arise about the Dutch model.

Although the online market was opened in 2021 with the clear intention of regulating the sector and ensuring player safety, in practice the results are often contrary to expectations. High licensing costs – including a €48,000 application fee and annual charges based on revenue – along with strict regulatory requirements have led some companies to opt out of entering the market. Meanwhile, illegal operators continue to operate and often face no consequences at all.

From the perspective of many foreign firms, the Netherlands has become a high-barrier market. What’s more, the regulator has not provided any “soft landing” mechanisms for operators wishing to transition from the grey area to the licensed system.

The Problem of Overregulation

According to Dutch law, operators must meet a wide range of requirements: from AML compliance and data protection to technical audits and advertising restrictions. Since July 2023, ads targeting young people or presenting misleading information about winning odds have been banned. A range of additional restrictions governs the content, broadcast times, and context in which campaigns can be aired.

While these principles may seem reasonable on paper, their practical application has discouraged some operators. Companies have pointed to the unpredictability of the regulator’s decisions and the unclear criteria used to evaluate marketing activities. Many in the industry also note the lack of transparent dialogue with KSA and the difficulty of interpreting regulations that don’t always keep pace with market realities.

The result has been a rise in the visibility of illegal operators who are not bound by any requirements, pay no taxes or licensing fees, and yet still reach Dutch players. These players, in turn, are not protected to the same extent as those using licensed platforms. Ultimately, this creates a perception that the regulator is making life more difficult for legal businesses while failing to provide real consumer protection.

Is KSA Achieving its Goals?

Although from the outside the Netherlands may appear to be one of the most rigorous and effective markets in Europe, the data shows that not everything is working as intended. The primary objective of the new system was to protect players and reduce the share of unlicensed activity. However, the number of users visiting illegal websites does not appear to be declining, and non-licensed operators continue to thrive.

Moreover, the current regulatory structure in the Netherlands favors large international operators at the expense of smaller, local companies. For many of them, the entry barriers are too high and the risks disproportionate to the potential benefits.

It also doesn’t help that the regulator focuses heavily on enforcement while giving less attention to industry dialogue, player education, or creating an environment that encourages legal operations. In contrast, other regulatory systems in Europe, such as the UK’s, are based on a more cooperative approach with operators.

A regulator’s effectiveness shouldn’t be measured solely by the number of fines. Far more important are long-term indicators such as the number of active licenses, player safety, or the stability of the regulatory environment. In these areas, the Netherlands continues to face challenges.

Responsible Gaming and Education

KSA is also taking steps in the area of responsible gambling, including promoting the CRUKS self-exclusion system. However, issues persist here as well. The case of Unibet, which allowed users listed in CRUKS to continue gambling, shows that the system does not always work as intended.

There is also a lack of educational campaigns aimed at raising awareness of gambling-related risks and promoting safer behavior. Unlike the UK, where organizations such as GambleAware operate, the Netherlands still lacks an institution of similar scale and visibility.

Effectiveness or Illusion of Control?

Kansspelautoriteit is undoubtedly one of the most active regulators in Europe. The number of penalties, warnings, and enforcement actions highlights its determination to fight illegal practices. But behind these statistics lies a more complex market reality, where licensed operators face increasingly difficult conditions while the black market shows no sign of disappearing.

Is KSA the best regulator in Europe? Perhaps in terms of enforcement. But effective regulation is more than just issuing penalties. It also means building a stable, transparent, and supportive environment for both players and operators — and this is where KSA still has considerable work to do.

Ultimately, a regulator’s effectiveness should be judged not by how many fines it imposes but by the level of trust it fosters in the market, the protection it provides to consumers, and its ability to create an open yet safe environment for gambling services. The Netherlands is on the right path, but its model needs adjustment. Otherwise, strong enforcement alone may not be enough to achieve real balance.