Dutch Lawyer Accuses Regulator of Leaving Industry to Fight Meta Over Illegal Gambling Ads

A growing dispute over illegal gambling advertising in the Netherlands has put the country’s gambling regulator under increasing pressure, after lawyer Justin Franssen accused the Dutch Gambling Authority (Kansspelautoriteit, or KSA) of failing to use enforcement powers that are already available to it.

Speaking at the SBC Summit during a panel examining the Netherlands’ regulatory challenges, Franssen argued that the regulator has the legal means to take action against Meta and other digital platforms that facilitate illegal gambling advertising, but has instead left much of the enforcement burden to the gambling industry itself.

Franssen, a partner at Franssen Tolboom Attorneys at Law, said he found the situation particularly difficult to understand given that the KSA is funded in significant part by the licensed operators it regulates.

“To me it’s absolutely incomprehensible that we have a regulator that is paid a serious amount of money by the operators and continues to complain that it doesn’t have enough enforcement capabilities,” Franssen said.

His criticism came during the panel “The Dutch Dilemma: Deposit Caps, Ad Bans and the Black-Market Boom”, where the discussion focused on the Netherlands’ increasingly difficult battle against illegal gambling and the regulatory measures being considered to address it.

Franssen argues KSA already has the necessary powers

At the centre of Franssen’s criticism is Dutch gambling legislation covering the advertising and facilitation of prohibited gambling.

According to Franssen, the relevant provision initially focused on advertising prohibited gambling activities but was subsequently expanded to cover the facilitation of such activities as well.

He argued that Meta’s role in allowing advertisements from unlicensed gambling operators to reach Dutch consumers should fall within that expanded provision.

“To me, what Meta and others are doing is pure facilitation,” Franssen said. “Why are they not stepping up?”

The lawyer pointed to what he sees as a growing imbalance in enforcement. Rather than the regulator taking the lead against platforms carrying illegal gambling advertisements, licensed gambling businesses and industry associations are increasingly resorting to civil litigation themselves.

The Dutch online gambling trade association VNLOK has brought legal action against Meta, while Nederlandse Loterij has separately pursued civil cases against illegal gambling operators.

Nederlandse Loterij launched proceedings against Lalabet in March 2025 and Qbet in April 2026, and secured a victory against Lalabet in June.

For Franssen, those cases illustrate a broader problem: the industry is increasingly being forced to perform an enforcement role that should principally belong to the regulator.

Parliamentary proposal criticised

Franssen also criticised a motion discussed by the Dutch parliament that sought to give the KSA greater authority to intervene when Meta fails to remove illegal gambling advertisements.

The proposal was intended to strengthen the regulator’s ability to act against digital platforms that ignore requests to remove unlawful advertisements.

But Franssen dismissed the idea that such additional powers were necessary.

“Well, it already can. It just isn’t doing so,” he said.

His comments reflect a central point of contention in the Dutch debate: whether the main problem is a lack of regulatory authority or the willingness and strategy to use the powers already available.

VNLOK chairman Björn Fuchs similarly expressed frustration with the KSA’s approach to Meta.

Fuchs said he was surprised by public comments from the gambling authority suggesting that continued dialogue and cooperation with Meta could ultimately prove more effective than confrontation.

“It was really astonishing to read the gambling authority state in a national newspaper that it would rather talk and cooperate with Meta because that would be more effective in the long term,” Fuchs said.

“We’ve seen the last five years; it doesn’t add up.”

VNLOK turns to the courts

Fuchs subsequently explained why VNLOK decided to take the matter to court.

According to him, the association had attempted to engage directly with Meta before resorting to litigation. Those efforts, however, produced what he described as little meaningful progress, with the association receiving automated responses rather than substantive engagement.

VNLOK is now asking a Dutch court to require Meta to comply with its obligations under the European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA).

Fuchs said he remains confident about the case.

“We feel confident,” he said.

He argued that the wider legal and political environment surrounding Meta has changed significantly in recent years. As evidence of that shift, he pointed to legal and political scrutiny of the company's business practices in other jurisdictions.

“Who would have thought, five or ten years ago, that Meta would be charged in the US with being addictive at its core?” Fuchs asked.

He also pointed to France and Germany, where civil courts have held Meta liable in connection with illegal gambling advertising.

Fuchs nevertheless expects Meta to challenge the jurisdiction of the Dutch proceedings. Because Meta’s European operations are based in Dublin, he believes the company could attempt to have the case transferred there.

Any jurisdictional dispute could add another layer of complexity to the proceedings before the underlying issues are considered.

AI is widening the regulatory gap

The dispute is also unfolding against a rapidly changing digital advertising environment.

Fuchs argued that regulators and lawmakers are already struggling to keep pace with developments in technology, particularly the use of artificial intelligence and automated accounts.

“Politics and legislation always lag behind reality, typically by about three years,” he said.

According to Fuchs, AI-generated advertisements and bot accounts are making the regulatory gap even wider.

A Dutch study published during the same week provided an illustration of the problem. Researchers tested 10 leading AI assistants, including Meta AI, to determine how they responded to queries involving gambling operators.

Every AI assistant tested reportedly identified at least one unlicensed operator.

More concerningly, three of the systems presented unlicensed gambling websites in a manner that could suggest the operators were legitimate.

Microsoft Copilot went further by generating a purported “Top 50 legal casinos” list that included unlicensed gambling brands and presented them as though they were licensed by the KSA.

For the Dutch licensed gambling industry, the findings add another dimension to the wider problem of illegal operators reaching consumers through digital channels.

Fuchs sees European courts moving in the right direction

Despite the challenges, Fuchs believes the legal environment is beginning to shift in favour of stronger accountability for major technology platforms.

The EU Digital Services Act is central to that expectation.

“And with the DSA in place, I believe the European courts are also moving in that direction,” he said.

VNLOK is seeking to use the European legislation as part of its case against Meta, while simultaneously pursuing broader regulatory engagement at EU level.

When the association began its legal proceedings in June, it also submitted a formal complaint to the European Commission.

Fuchs confirmed that VNLOK remains in contact with European authorities, although he declined to disclose details of those discussions.

“Yes, we are in contact with various agencies at European level, though I can’t go into that,” he said.

Industry calls for a coordinated European response

Fuchs argued that illegal online gambling is no longer a problem that can be effectively addressed by individual national regulators acting alone.

He described offshore operators with licences in other jurisdictions as operating from what he called “a small island”, while using techniques such as cloaking and short-lived advertisements to reach consumers in regulated markets.

In his view, the tactics can resemble those of “a criminal organisation”.

Fuchs suggested that international bodies such as Interpol could ultimately have a role to play, although he acknowledged that the threshold for involving such organisations is high.

His immediate priority, however, is greater cooperation among European gambling regulators.

“So let’s first make sure the gambling authorities in all our countries join forces and identify the common problems and common denominators,” he said.

VNLOK is already sharing information and intelligence with industry organisations in Denmark, Sweden, Germany, the UK, France and Spain.

Fuchs believes this type of cross-border cooperation needs to be matched at regulator level.

“At gambling-authority level, it should be much higher. Meta is a European problem,” he said.

He added that European authorities were gradually building a substantial body of evidence.

“I am confident that they are piling up evidence and insight at European level, and that they will start moving,” Fuchs said. “But for gambling, that should ramp up in the near future.”

Court battle now awaits next stage

For now, the dispute remains at an early stage.

VNLOK has served its summons at the Amsterdam District Court, but no hearing date has yet been announced.

The possibility of an initial jurisdictional challenge could further delay proceedings, particularly if Meta seeks to argue that the case belongs in Ireland because of its European corporate structure.

The case nevertheless represents a significant escalation in the Netherlands’ struggle with illegal gambling advertising on major social-media platforms.

For Franssen, the fundamental question is why a regulator with existing statutory powers has not acted more forcefully.

For VNLOK, the answer has increasingly been to pursue Meta through the courts and seek support at European level.

The confrontation therefore extends beyond a dispute between a Dutch trade association and a technology company. It raises a wider question about who should bear responsibility for policing illegal gambling advertising in a digital environment where platforms, offshore operators, automated advertising systems and AI-generated content can operate across national borders.

With the Dutch gambling industry pressing for stronger enforcement and the EU’s Digital Services Act providing a new legal framework, the Meta litigation could become an important test of how far European courts and regulators are prepared to hold major digital platforms accountable for facilitating access to unlicensed gambling.

For the moment, however, the Netherlands’ regulatory authorities face mounting pressure from the very industry they are expected to protect from the expansion of the illegal market.

By fLEXI tEAM