Dutch gambling body takes Meta to court over illegal betting adverts

Dutch gambling trade association VNLOK has summoned Meta to court over illegal gambling adverts on Facebook and Instagram, escalating a dispute about how far platforms must go to prevent unlicensed operators reaching consumers.

The association, which represents licensed Dutch online gambling providers, announced the summons on 28 September. It wants the Amsterdam court to require stronger prevention measures under the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA). For UK operators, the case raises a familiar question: why can illegal competitors buy advertising space on platforms that also serve regulated brands?

What VNLOK wants the court to order

In its September announcement, VNLOK asks for a finding that Meta is failing to meet its DSA obligations and an order requiring better prevention of illegal adverts targeting Dutch consumers.

The association says more than 90% of the Facebook gambling adverts it examined came from illegal sites. Its reported removal rates were 11% in May and 15% in June. These are VNLOK’s findings, rather than a court determination or a measure of every gambling advert on Meta.

Its June statement also sought a declaration of liability and daily penalties if Meta failed to comply with an order. Separately, VNLOK asked the European Commission to investigate and potentially impose sanctions.

The legal argument goes beyond removing individual ads

VNLOK’s published argument centres on the DSA duties of very large platforms to assess and mitigate systemic risks, including the dissemination of illegal content. Articles 34 and 35 establish that framework.

The DSA also distinguishes hosting liability from preventive obligations. Article 6 provides a conditional hosting exemption, while preserving the possibility of court orders. Article 8 prohibits a general monitoring obligation; it does not erase the separate risk-mitigation duties.

However, VNLOK’s announcements do not disclose the full pleadings, the precise Dutch procedural basis for its standing or every provision relied upon. Describing the proceedings as an established competition-law case would therefore go beyond the published evidence.

European pressure takes different forms

The Dutch proceedings sit alongside other European interventions, but these should not be counted as four equivalent active lawsuits.

Italy’s AGCOM decision, Germany’s regulatory update and Spain’s illegal gambling guidance show different legal approaches. They do not establish a common enforcement outcome.

What licensed advertisers could face

No filtering system has been ordered. Possible measures include checking advertiser identities and destination domains against national licence registers, alongside controls against repeat offenders.

For operators and affiliates, that could mean more documentation, slower approvals and appeals when lawful campaigns are mistakenly blocked. These are potential consequences, not confirmed requirements. Any reduction in illegal competition would also depend on preventing advertisers returning through replacement accounts.

The UK relevance is direct. In January, Gambling Commission executive director Tim Miller criticised Meta’s response to illegal casino advertising:

“If we can find them then so can Meta: they simply choose not to look.” — Tim Miller, Gambling Commission

The Dutch case could test whether that demand for proactive action becomes an enforceable court obligation.