The Hague examines recovery of damages from inciters of violence
The municipality wants to assess whether online agitators can be held financially liable for damage suffered by businesses in The Hague.
Follow-up to: The Hague emergency order extended after riot police operation Saturday, 31 October 2026, 16:59
Listen to this article
There is no audio version yet. Request one and an AI voice will read the article aloud.
Read by an AI voice.
The Hague is investigating whether people who called for violence and looting via social media can be held financially liable for damage suffered by shopkeepers. According to alderman Richard de Mos, businesses lost turnover because they closed and barricaded their premises as a precaution.
De Mos, alderman for the Economy and the City Centre, announced the investigation on Sunday. The municipality wants to examine the legal options for recovering damages from people who called online for violence or looting. For now, this is an investigation, not an established liability procedure.
On Saturday, The Hague prepared for renewed unrest in the city centre. Many shops boarded up their frontages or closed early. According to the municipality, there was no looting, but businesses did report economic damage from lost turnover and customers staying away.
The precise scale of the damage has not yet been established. According to reports, businesses put the figure at many thousands of euros. Security costs, boarding up shopfronts and additional staff may also play a role, but the municipality has not yet published a total figure.
Legally, it is not enough for someone to have posted a call online and for damage to occur afterwards. It will have to be established who made which call, whether that call was unlawful and whether there is a demonstrable link to specific damage. During riots, it is also often difficult to establish which person is responsible for which part of the damage.
The discussion therefore touches on the boundary between freedom of expression and incitement. The municipality wants to support businesses, but proceedings against individual instigators require sufficient substantiation of the facts and the link to the damage. The role played by the police, the Public Prosecution Service and the court will depend on the procedure chosen. For now, it is established that the threat prompted businesses to take precautionary measures; it has not been established how much damage can ultimately be recovered.
Also show where in Europe and in the world
One story, several perspectives
What is established
- The municipality of The Hague is investigating legal options for recovering damages from people who called online for violence or looting.
- Shopkeepers closed or barricaded their premises as a precaution.
- The scale of the damage and legal liability have not yet been established.
Left
Arguments The government must protect businesses and prevent individual shopkeepers from bearing the costs of social unrest. At the same time, liability must be established carefully to prevent disproportionate prosecution and infringement of freedom of expression.
Values Legal protection, social responsibility and the protection of employees and small businesses.
Consequences A broad effort to recover damages could set a precedent for online statements; an overly hasty approach could damage trust in the rule of law.
Centre
Arguments An investigation into liability is defensible, but only with clear rules of evidence and independent scrutiny, with the involvement of the Public Prosecution Service and the court depending on the procedure chosen.
Values Legal certainty, feasibility and proportionality.
Consequences A limited group of demonstrably responsible instigators could potentially be dealt with, while general damage should mainly be absorbed publicly or collectively.
Right
Arguments Those who deliberately call for violence and thereby leave businesses facing costs should not be able to hide behind a screen. The government should place the bill with those responsible as far as possible.
Values Order, protection of property and personal responsibility.
Consequences A robust approach could act as a deterrent, but an overly broad definition of incitement could also affect legitimate criticism.
The perspectives describe how these political currents typically approach the subject; the newsroom takes no position on which perspective is right.
Fact-check Approved · 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 article’s central claim is confirmed by WNL/ANP and NOS. The legal explanation is phrased in general terms and does not present unproven liability as established fact.
- confirmed Alderman Richard de Mos wants to investigate whether online instigators can be held financially liable. — WNL/ANP reported this on 1 November 2026. source
- confirmed Many shops in The Hague closed or barricaded their premises as a precaution. — NOS described shops being boarded up and telephone threats. source
- confirmed The total damage has not yet been established. — WNL mentioned only preliminary estimates from businesses and no total figure from the municipality. source
Editor's note
It is certain that the alderman wants to launch an investigation and that shops closed as a precaution. The total damage, the identity of possible instigators and the legal viability remain unknown.Sources
The story so far
- Saturday, 31 October 2026, 15:25 Several people arrested during protest at Malieveld
- Saturday, 31 October 2026, 16:59 The Hague emergency order extended after riot police operation
- Sunday, 1 November 2026, 11:47 The Hague examines recovery of damages from inciters of violence (this article)
More on this in Dutch media
- Het Parool — „den haag”
- Trouw — „den haag”
- NRC — „den haag”