The Dutch Gaming Authority (Kansspelautoriteit, KSA) recently issued a fine to the prediction market platform Polymarket, demanding it to cease operations within the Netherlands immediately, or face a fine of up to 840,000 euros. KSA determined that the event-based betting contracts offered by Polymarket fall under the Dutch legal definition of games of chance and gambling, which require a local license. Polymarket argued that it is a "legal prediction market and exchange," not a traditional gambling site, but this reasoning was rejected by the regulatory body on the spot. Simply put, whether you call it prediction or trading, in the eyes of the Netherlands, as long as you bet on outcomes, it is gambling. Want to know about the regulatory encirclement prediction markets face globally?
One, KSA's conclusive evidence: Dutch players can play, pay, and even access Dutch language customer service
KSA found multiple pieces of evidence targeting the Dutch market during its investigation:
Using a Dutch IP address allows normal access to the website, completing the entire process of account registration, login, deposit, betting, and withdrawal
The payment system accepts Dutch banking channels, and testers can deposit via Mastercard (routed through a Dutch bank)
The website provides Dutch language AI customer support, and the currency of payment is euros
The user agreement does not list the Netherlands as a restricted country
There are betting markets targeting Dutch politics, including events involving the Dutch cabinet
This chain of evidence clearly points to: Polymarket actively providing services to Dutch consumers.
Two, why did the "not gambling" defense fail?
In response to the accusations, Polymarket's defense strategy emphasized its fundamental difference from traditional gambling:
Users trade with each other, with prices and settlements determined by market dynamics and contractual logic
The outcomes are not purely by chance, but are the product of "informed decisions and active trading choices"
Website elements only show "passive accessibility," not enough to prove active targeting of the Dutch market
However, KSA's response was definitive: "Prediction markets are on the rise, including in the Netherlands. Such companies' betting offerings are not allowed in our market, even for licensed operators." Regulatory Director Ella Seijsener added that besides gambling risks, such predictions could also affect elections and other social events, and must be prohibited.
In the end, KSA upheld its decision, requiring Polymarket to cease operations within four weeks of the ruling (January 20), with a weekly fine of 420,000 euros thereafter, until reaching the 840,000 euros cap.
Three, global regulatory encirclement: From the United States to France, the Netherlands adds another mark
This is not the first time Polymarket has touched regulatory red lines:
January 2022 (United States): The CFTC determined it offered unregistered event binary options contracts, fined 1.4 million dollars, and ordered the shutdown of non-compliant markets
End of 2024 (France): The National Gaming Authority directly implemented geographical blocking
2024-2025 (multiple states in the United States): Nevada, Massachusetts, and other states questioned whether its sports and event contracts constituted illegal gambling
Although Polymarket strengthened national restrictions and geographical blocking measures after 2022, traffic surged during the 2024 U.S. elections, once again drawing regulatory focus. This Dutch penalty marks a consistent attitude among European regulators towards prediction markets: No matter how it is technically packaged, as long as it is essentially gambling, it must be included in the regulatory framework.
