The Dutch government has rejected calls for tighter restrictions on how gambling operators enter the regulated market, maintaining that existing safeguards are sufficient to prevent circumvention through corporate restructuring.

The pushback comes after parliamentary questions about whether companies with a history of unlicensed operations could effectively re-enter through acquisitions or layered ownership structures that obscure ultimate responsibility. Several MPs, including Mirjam Bikker and Jimmy Dobbe, raised concerns that such arrangements create regulatory blind spots.

The Structural Question

A live example illustrates the concern. 888 Holdings operates in the Netherlands under a licence held by Godwits LTD, which is part of ComeOn Group, while the brand itself sits within evoke plc’s portfolio. This multi-layered structure makes it harder to identify who ultimately controls operations and bears regulatory responsibility. For critics, these arrangements highlight a potential loophole in how the market is policed.

As the gambling industry globalises, ownership structures have grown increasingly complex. Companies now span multiple jurisdictions and corporate entities. That complexity raises legitimate questions about whether regulators can actually trace accountability when violations occur.

Confidence in Existing Tools

State Secretary Claudia van Bruggen argues that additional rules are unnecessary. Her position rests on confidence in the Kansspelautoriteit (KSA), the Dutch gambling regulator, which already possesses robust powers to assess applications and intervene when red flags emerge.

The existing framework includes a reliability test that scrutinises applicants, their executives, and beneficial owners. Any track record of illegal gambling activity, even outside the Netherlands, can disqualify candidates. Then there’s the Remote Gambling Act, which imposes a cooling-off period requiring operators to demonstrate they have not actively targeted Dutch consumers without a licence for nearly three years before applying for one. Several applications have already been rejected on this basis.

Enforcement Powers vs. Structural Opacity

The regulator can impose substantial penalties, attach conditions to licences, or revoke them entirely if breaches occur. Yet the effectiveness of these tools depends on the KSA’s ability to see through complex corporate arrangements and establish clear lines of accountability. When ownership is distributed across multiple entities and jurisdictions, determining who is genuinely responsible becomes considerably more difficult.

The government appears content to let the regulator navigate these challenges without new legislative safeguards. No additional rules are planned. Officials continue to characterise the current system as sufficiently rigorous.

Whether that confidence holds will depend on market dynamics and how aggressively operators test regulatory boundaries in the years ahead. We’ll see.