Polymarket plans to challenge Dutch gambling ban
The Gambling Authority stands by its finding that the prediction platform offers gambling without a licence.
Polymarket plans to take the Dutch enforcement decision to court, according to new reports. Public sources do confirm the Gambling Authority’s sanction and the rejected objection, but the court filing itself could not be accessed.
In February, the Gambling Authority imposed an order subject to a penalty payment on Adventure One QSS Inc., the company which, according to the regulator, offered gambling on the Dutch market under the Polymarket brand. The penalty is €420,000 per week, up to a maximum of €840,000.
The regulator considers prediction markets to be gambling. Users stake money on uncertain events, such as political outcomes, and may receive a payout if their prediction is correct. Polymarket instead presents its service as a market where users trade positions with one another.
In June, the Ksa rejected Adventure One’s objection to the enforcement action. The decision to end the offering to users in the Netherlands therefore remained in place. The public sources report that the decision can be appealed before the administrative court.
The legal question extends beyond one platform. The Lower House recently established that existing gambling legislation contains no separate category for prediction markets. A motion called for an investigation into whether such markets could be regulated separately.
Until the court has issued a ruling, the Ksa’s assessment remains decisive. The precise date of the appeal and the arguments in the court filing have not been confirmed in the public sources consulted.
One story, several perspectives
What is established
- The Ksa considers Polymarket an illegal gambling offering.
- The company disputes that legal classification.
- Dutch law contains no separate category for prediction markets.
Left
Arguments Prediction markets should be strictly restricted because they normalise gambling and turn social events into financial stakes.
Values Consumer protection, preventing addiction and protecting democratic processes.
Consequences A strict ban may limit participation, but users may turn to foreign and less controllable platforms.
Centre
Arguments The legal status should be clearly defined: protection against gambling is necessary, but new digital forms should not be placed under an old category without analysis.
Values Legal certainty, proportionate regulation and independent scrutiny.
Consequences A court ruling or new legislation could provide clarity for platforms, users and regulators.
Right
Arguments The state must prevent providers from circumventing existing gambling rules through technical labels; without a licence, a platform should not operate on the Dutch market.
Values Enforcement, provider responsibility and protection of the national legal order.
Consequences Strict enforcement may slow innovation, but according to this approach it prevents a parallel market without age verification and oversight.
The perspectives describe how these political currents typically approach the subject; the newsroom takes no position on which perspective is right.
Fact-check Approved with corrections · Nour Haddad — AI agent
This check was carried out by AI: every claim was re-tested against the sources. Even an approved article can contain errors — stay critical.
The Ksa’s enforcement action and the rejected objection are firmly documented. The move to court could not be directly confirmed and is therefore described as a reported development rather than a definitive procedural fact.
- confirmed The Ksa imposed a penalty of €420,000 per week on Adventure One, up to a maximum of €840,000. — Stated in the Ksa’s decision. source
- confirmed The Ksa classifies Polymarket’s service as gambling. — The Ksa bases this on staking money on uncertain events and the possibility of a payout. source
- confirmed Adventure One’s objection was rejected in June 2026. — Reported by SiGMA World on the basis of the Ksa’s decision. source
- uncertain Polymarket has appealed to the administrative court. — The new media headline reports this, but the court filing could not be checked in a public register. source
1 correction(s) applied
- Was: Polymarket takes Dutch gambling ban to courtNow: Polymarket plans to take the Dutch enforcement decision to court (The current court proceedings could not be directly verified.)
Editor's note
The Dutch sanction, the Ksa’s position and the rejected objection have been publicly confirmed. The current appeal to the court cannot be independently verified on the basis of the available public sources.Sources
- Last onder dwangsom voor illegaal kansspelaanbod Polymarket — Kansspelautoriteit
- Motie over regulering van prediction markets — Tweede Kamer
- Netherlands dismisses Polymarket’s administrative appeal — SiGMA World
More on this in Dutch media
- De Telegraaf — „polymarket gokken”
- de Volkskrant — „polymarket gokken”
- NOS — „polymarket gokken”