Dutch Gambling Legislation in Limbo After Ministerial Resignation

Dutch Gambling Legislation in Limbo After Ministerial Resignation

Political turbulence in the Netherlands has again spilled into the gambling policy arena following the resignation of Teun Struycken, the Secretary for Legal Protection, who had been overseeing gambling regulation. His departure, reported by Dutch media, removes one of the few figures in government directly associated with reform efforts, leaving the future of proposed changes uncertain at a critical moment.

Struycken stepped down in protest after the government vetoed sanctions against Israel, a decision that has prompted several ministers to leave their posts. The timing is significant, arriving only months before the early general election called for October. The fall of the four-party coalition earlier this summer already set the stage for instability, and Struycken's decision adds another complication to the political and regulatory landscape.

Appointed in July 2024, Struycken's tenure was brief but consequential. He had laid out a reform agenda in February that aimed to adjust the legal framework governing online gambling. Central to his proposals was a plan to raise the minimum age for online casino play from 18 to 21. The measure was framed as a step toward greater protection for young adults, a demographic often highlighted in European regulatory discussions as being at higher risk of developing harmful gambling patterns.

Another major reform in development was the introduction of mandatory financial checks for players seeking to exceed deposit limits. Current regulations, introduced by the Dutch gambling authority Kansspelautoriteit (KSA) last October, set monthly caps of €300 for players aged 18 to 24 and €700 for those over 24. Struycken wanted to go further, requiring verification of financial capacity before limits could be lifted. The approach would have placed additional responsibility on operators to monitor affordability and potentially prevent players from incurring unsustainable losses.

Advertising was also part of the discussion. Struycken signaled his intention to tighten restrictions on digital promotion, including targeted ads and sponsorship deals. This reflected a broader European trend of governments moving to reduce the visibility of gambling marketing, particularly to younger audiences. While details of how far such restrictions would go were not finalized, the direction was clear: further controls were being considered.

With Struycken's resignation, the future of this reform package is now in limbo. He had indicated as recently as last month that the proposals were still under consideration, but his departure makes it unlikely that they will progress before the October vote. The question now is whether the next government will adopt, revise, or abandon the agenda altogether.

The uncertainty places both operators and regulators in a difficult position. For the KSA, it means continuing enforcement of the current system without political clarity on forthcoming changes. For operators, it delays preparations for compliance with potentially more stringent rules. This uncertainty can complicate strategic planning, particularly for operators who must weigh investment in the Dutch market against evolving regulatory risks.

The political environment adds another layer of unpredictability. The upcoming election could reshape the balance of power, and with it, the policy priorities of the next coalition. Gambling regulation is rarely a headline issue in campaigns, but it often emerges during coalition negotiations as part of broader discussions about consumer protection, fiscal policy, and social responsibility. The path chosen will depend heavily on which parties gain influence after the October elections.

In the wider European context, the Netherlands is not alone in grappling with reform. The United Kingdom has been debating affordability checks and advertising restrictions, Sweden has introduced new deposit and bonus limits, and Germany continues to refine its own regulatory framework. Struycken's proposals were consistent with this continental trend, and some form of tightening will likely remain on the political agenda in the Netherlands regardless of who takes office.

For now, however, the immediate effect is a pause. Without a clear advocate within government, progress has stalled. Industry stakeholders will have to wait until the political dust settles before they can determine whether the reforms outlined earlier this year will be revisited on the legislative table.

Struycken's resignation demonstrates how external political developments can influence gambling regulation in unexpected ways. While his proposals remain formally alive, they are now hostage to the outcome of an election that could reset the conversation entirely. For the Dutch gambling sector, this means months of waiting to see whether the next government will carry forward his initiatives, reshape them, or pursue a different course.