Dutch gambling trade association VNLOK summoned Meta before the Amsterdam court on Monday 28 September, seeking stronger measures to prevent illegal gambling adverts reaching consumers on Facebook and Instagram. The action tests how far a very large online platform must go under the European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA), with direct implications for licensed operators competing in the Dutch market.
VNLOK says more than 90% of the Facebook gambling adverts it examined came from illegal sites. That is the association’s finding, not a court determination or a measure of every gambling advert on Meta’s platforms.
What VNLOK wants the court to decide
The association represents licensed Dutch online gambling providers and is asking the court to find that Meta is failing to meet its DSA obligations. It wants an order requiring the company to do more to prevent illegal adverts targeting Dutch consumers.
VNLOK reported that Meta removed 11% of the adverts in May and 15% in June. In a June statement, it also sought a declaration of liability and daily penalties if Meta failed to comply with a court order; separately, it asked the European Commission to investigate and potentially impose sanctions.
The claim puts a commercial tension in plain view: licensed operators face market rules and advertising restrictions, while unlicensed competitors may still seek access to the same audiences through social platforms. Similar questions about platform policies have surfaced in debates over how TikTok applies gambling-related policies, though the Dutch case is specifically about Meta and the DSA.
Why the case turns on prevention, not just takedowns
The legal question extends beyond whether individual adverts are removed after they are reported. Under the DSA, very large online platforms must assess and mitigate systemic risks, including risks linked to the spread of illegal content; Articles 34 and 35 set out that risk-assessment and mitigation framework.
That framework sits alongside separate rules on platform liability. Article 6 provides a conditional exemption from liability for hosted content, while preserving the possibility of court orders, and Article 8 prohibits a general obligation to monitor all user content. The monitoring limit does not, by itself, remove the distinct duties to assess and mitigate systemic risks.
There is an important limit to what can be concluded at this stage: VNLOK’s published announcements do not disclose the full pleadings, the precise Dutch procedural basis for its standing or every legal provision it relies on. The proceedings should therefore not be described as an established competition-law case, and the association’s allegations remain for the court to assess.
Regulators in other markets are also pressing platforms over online gambling content, including through efforts to strengthen gambling-content controls in Indonesia. The legal framework and enforcement route differ, but the shared operational challenge is how to make removal obligations effective without treating every platform or jurisdiction as equivalent.
Different European interventions, unresolved consequences
The Dutch action combines a court claim with a complaint to the European Commission. Elsewhere, Italy’s communications regulator, the Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni (AGCOM), issued a December 2023 enforcement decision against Meta under Italy’s national gambling advertising ban.
In Germany, the Gemeinsame Glücksspielbehörde der Länder (GGL), or Joint Gambling Authority of the Länder, has reported that restrictions on Google and Meta adverts contributed to declines in illegal advertising. Spain’s Dirección General de Ordenación del Juego (DGOJ), or Directorate General for the Regulation of Gambling, has set out duties to remove illegal gambling content; the primary evidence does not establish a comparable current case against Meta there.
These examples point to different regulatory tools, not a single European enforcement model or a shared outcome. For operators and suppliers, that distinction matters: a court order in the Netherlands could create a specific obligation, but it would not automatically settle how other markets enforce their own rules.
No new filtering system has been ordered. Possible measures could include checking advertiser identities and destination domains against national licence registers, alongside controls to stop repeat offenders. Those are potential approaches, not confirmed requirements in the Dutch case.
More stringent checks could mean additional documentation and slower campaign approvals for operators and affiliates, as well as appeals when lawful advertising is mistakenly blocked. Any reduction in illegal competition would also depend on stopping advertisers from returning under replacement accounts; stricter screening at the first upload would not be enough on its own.
The UK has a stake in the question too. Gambling Commission executive director Tim Miller has criticised Meta’s response to illegal casino advertising, and the Dutch proceedings could test whether calls for more proactive action can become an enforceable court obligation. The Amsterdam case and the Commission complaint remain unresolved, leaving licensed advertisers to watch whether platform-wide risk duties translate into practical controls.
The post VNLOK takes Meta to court over illegal gambling adverts appeared first on CasinoBeats.
