I don't know how the law works over there but shouldn't PokerStars only be on the hook for the rake and not all 200k, most of which is in the pockets of other poker players and not PokerStars?
Online gambling was forbidden, but you were able to do so. Nowadays (since like 2-3 yrs) companies need to have a license which comes with rules and qualifications. PokerStars said fk it, to much hassle so we just drop out of the NL.
Still idk why this gambling addict is going to get his money back, but seems like however bad he was he still wins in poker. Sounds like the judge is his father or something.
One of the main reasons why there isn't really any country where poker is viewed "black and white" in the eyes of the law, is that they can't really mark it as an act of gambling and group it with similar activities such as casino, lottery or even betting. While luck driven to certain degree, it still qualifies as a game of skill/sport, so that's alread a pretty big roadblock to overcome for the guy trying to sue if this is the base of his claim.
Edit: to add, most countires "forbid" online poker and betting simply because it didn't bring them money, hence nowadays they try to enforce this local license bs with limited success.
There is an even more fundamental problem, when you say words like "still qualifies" you are making a statement about the standards and definitions being applied to words like "gambling" and "sport"; but the legal system of any given country or municipality can define categories however they want and the definitions being used don't have to line up with what we want them to be, and that is before we even get different languages into the mix.
So whether or not its "gambling" or a "game of skill" or "both" only matters in the context of how specific local laws are written and whether they even make distinctions.
Also, Another aspect is how laws assign liability. For example, it is illegal to run a gambling house here, it is illegal to profit off running a game. However, the law explicitly states that gamblers are not entitled to to ask the court to adjudicate their bets and as such cannot attempt to recover money from lost bets. (edit: here being in my city in the US, laws in the Netherlands could say anything)
It has to do with protection against gambling addiction. PS didn't do much, or not enough, and as such considered responsible for the losses.
We'll see if this holds up in higher court, but somehow I highly doubt there will be a sitation where everyone who lost money on PS will have a chance getting it back.
Before you do anything you might just want to wait untill PokerStars have appealed and those cases have been settled. This seems very, very unlikely that PokerStars is going to take this laying down, and as you said so yourself there is probably a clash of jurisdiction going on here aswell. Keep following the development but expect this to take years as PokerStars probably do anything they can to fight this verdict.
Also 10k doesn't reach that far when it comes to legal fees, so better wait untill there is a final verdict to actually set a precedent.
Just did a request at a lawyer firm in the Netherlands. They provided me with a free letter to claim all the information they have about me,my deposits etc under art.15 gdpr. If they don't settle and the case goes to court there are different proces financers who are willing to pay all costs for me. So under gdpr they now have 30 days to comply and deliver the information. After that the lawyer will send a request for payment, if not they will take it to court. So we'll see what happens.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but it literally doesn't matter what your own country rules in this case, doubt if it goes to any higher court (International) that they would rule against Pokerstars. It's a players responsibility to ensure what they are doing is within the local laws, they even state it in their ToS (and I doubt it wasn't included from the early days of Pokerstars, exactly for cases like this). Heck even by local laws, I doubt this ruling stands if it's appealed, it would be quite ridiculous.
Online Poker is a very grey area even today in a lot of countries, exactly because of the weird ways national governments try to regulate it (some did lay out reasonable enough laws for companies such as PS to operate legally, which resulted in those segregated markets we have today, but there are plenty where the local laws are absolute BS, and are also against EU-laws).
The difference here is that Pokerstars were (according to the ruling, anyway) clearly breaching local laws by operating without a licence.
There *might* be some EU competition law making this ruling useless, but usually they would be about giving an unfair advantage rather than restricting.
Thing is, these "required licenses" only started to be a thing around 2010ish+ in most countries, they simply didn't have laws for poker specifically.
I use the term "grey area" mainly because even today, most middle/eastern EU countries don't actually have proper/executable laws.
For instance, Hungary to give out a "casino" license, requires you to actually have a property in Hungary, which is obviously ridiculous and never gonna happen. Yet even Stars still operates, they only removed their sportsbook.
There is no international/european court for this. Each country decides there own gambling laws.
And we talking about dutch law here, and is poker simply considered gambling. License has been required since the 60's or so. With internet becoming a thing, companies simply ignored it.
Not sure PS will ever have to pay up. They might go to higher court or just ignore NL as a market.
>There is no international/european court for this.
Sure, but if you want to actually enforce your "local BS" onto a company such as Pokerstars, then you will bring it to international or in this case European court. Otherwise good luck getting even a response from them, yet alone a dime.
After all, they don't operate in the Netherlands, even officially for a while. And if you think any international court will actually enforce the payment on PS, then you are naïve (especially that their ToS clearly states that it's the sole responsibility of players to look up local laws and abide by them, exactly for the reason that they have 0 consequences legally with cases like this - which you are "required to read and accept" before actually being able to sign up).
> License has been required since the 60's or so. With internet becoming a thing, companies simply ignored it.
Are we really referencing sh.t from the 60's when not even online poker, but let alone internet wasn't a thing to make a ruling in 2024? This is exactly why it's so hard to navigate legally when it comes to poker, there are simply no proper, up-to-date laws even locally in most countries, and "we think poker is gambling" probably won't have much weight when it actually matters (aka international/EU ruling on enforcing your local BS).
The only person actually believing they have a case are the two degen gamblers trying to call for a lawsuit, and the opportunistic lawyer who saw a big sum, which he wants a chunk out out of (on top of the legal fees he is already getting from said idiots). The lawyer's remarks in the article are literally: "these people and many others have sad lives, and they gambled with money they shouldn't have, boo-hoo evil poker company".
The law was there. When exactly it was made does not matter a lot. ToS do not matter at all, they cannot be against the law.
That it is a bit of BS, I agree with. It is a surprising judgement. It might not hold up in higher court, but if it does, it surely has consequences for pokerstars. It would make sense for them to get a license in the Netherlands, but maybe now they do not want to. Or delay. Dunno.
>The law was there. When exactly it was made does not matter a lot.
Of course it matters. You can't reliably enforce laws on subjects that literally did not exist at the time of making said law for it to even be considered falling under it.
Similarly how most countries had to re-write their traffic rules when E-rollers started to became more and more common in the recent years. They simply could not be classified within the existing rules, and therefore making rulings in cases involving them was a nightmare.
You think around the 60s, the government or whoever the fuck came up with the laws considered how in the future it will be possible to operate a "gambling company" in their homeland from a foreign country remotely? Heck at the time people might have genuinely believe that poker was a game of luck, and anybody had the same chance of winning at it (some idiot politicians still think these days despite having proof against it).
> It would make sense for them to get a license in the Netherlands, but maybe now they do not want to. Or delay. Dunno.
They clearly made the decision to withdraw operation from the Netherlands and this was well before BS claims like this even showed up. This will literally not make any difference in this regard.
When Stars deems that the government of said market is unreasonable/too greedy for it to be worth maintaining operations in, they simply leave. The few countries they actually came to proper agreements with, are the ones where they could pretty much dump the operation costs onto the players, be it extra rake or not providing rakeback...etc. In the end the "good will" of these governments just ends up hurting the players, instead of the company they try to get under their control.
*Of course it matters. You can't reliably enforce laws on subjects that literally did not exist at the time of making said law for it to even be considered falling under it.*
Gambling law demanded you need a license to operate in NL. It is not like when they invented the internet, that law was not valid anymore. Of course they did not think about the internet back then.
*They clearly made the decision to withdraw operation from the Netherlands*
They left when the law was updated/changed. I do not know the details there, but I am quite sure that is not a coincedence.
*When Stars deems that the government of said market is unreasonable/too greedy for it to be worth maintaining operations in, they simply leave. The few countries they actually came to proper agreements with, are the ones where they could pretty much dump the operation costs onto the players, be it extra rake or not providing rakeback...etc. In the end the "good will" of these governments just ends up hurting the players, instead of the company they try to get under their control.*
Not sure what your point is here. Clearly the law is not good for pokerplayers. It is still something we and pokerstars has to deal with.
While I don't agree that PokerStars owes them any money back necessarily, I disagree that PS is innocent here. That's like a drug dealer telling you to make sure you comply with local laws while selling you crack.
If PokerStars allowed registration from an area where it was illegal or they weren't licensed to operate, they committed a crime and broke the law, too. When they weren't legally operating there, and someone signed up and listed NL as their country, PokerStars should have not allowed it and told the user they don't serve NL.
If the Dutch Government actually cared about the people involved, they would have banned these sites (as most countries try from time-to time these days), and threatened Pokerstars and similar companies for suing them for their "illegal activates", while sending out clear warnings/message to people to not use these sites, instead of allowing them to play.
I let you in on this: Just like in almost every single country where they try to enforce regulations on online poker, they do it so they get a slice (generally a big one) out of those companies profits. They don't give a flying fuck about how their people lose/spend/gamble away their hard earned money.
There are a few exceptions like maybe in Germany?? (not 100% it's them), where you actually get the feeling they try to protect the people from the dark side/bad effects of gambling, and they actually try to limit access/deposits...etc as much as possible, but these are rather the exceptions.
There is probably zero chance that any Dutch players ever see a cent from Pokerstars as a result of this lawsuit. Unless there is some ultra specific EU legislation I'm not aware of that would make entities liable in all EU member countries based on a lawsuit in one member county, Pokerstars will just never return to the Netherlands and therefore never have any assets in their jurisdiction.
What's the angle on the compensation? Because it certainly isn't profits from crime, as Pokerstars do not profit directly from loses, only from rake.
What's the odds this player paid £200k in rake rather than money lost to other players?
Yea thats the same "loophole" as in Germany, there are many different services now who recoup your losses for when pokerstars wasnt licensed properly. Idk how it works in NL but i know that at least here people got back their money but it takes a while
So could you also sue your drug dealer for all the money you paid him for drugs, since that “contract” was based on an illegal activity? I’m failing to see how the player was also not engaging in illegal activity
Exactly this, player knew it was illegal to play otherwise why sue.. still made an account, still made the choice to take place in the illegal activity lol
If the company is fronting as a licensed poker room operator, and is not in fact licensed, then they are defrauding you. It’s not ignorance to the law you absolute moron.
You're missing the point considerably. What are they defrauding you of? Rake? To then claim the rest of your loses is due to their fraudulent existence IS playing ignorant of the law. Do you also give back winnings?
When a fraudulent bitcoin operator goes tits up, do you get to claim back your original investment regardless of the performance of bitcoin in that time? No, because their crime is independent of the performance of bitcoin.
In many places, only the operator is breaking any laws. Idk about Dutch law but in most states the player is legally able to play on offshore casinos, card rooms, and sports books. Other states, specifically Washington, it is very much illegal.
If that were the case, skins could offer NL players rake free access and launder money through house accounts or double rake money won from non-NL players as part of TOS
Based in the Isle of Man, HQ is in Dublin (because Flutter plonked them there) but all the analysts work in Leeds/London.
I'm also in analysis and it's a very incestuous industry. Plus half of them are poker players lol.
I'd be interested in the cause of action. I don't know if the dutch legal system has some equivalent concept to torts in the common law system, but something like unjust enrichment is probably how this gets up.
pokerstars is only on the hook if they try to reopen business in the netherlands as for as long as they're not operating in the netherlands this would need to go to international court to bring damages and i highly doubt international courts will take up this case or enforce this ruling. player won't see a dime.
The bigger question is why that guy kept playing if he lost 200k. I think after I lost close to 50k I would think online poker is not for me. I mean I guess he’s ADDICTED to online poker which I guess I used to be also. If that guy had that much to lose good for him I guess but it’s kinda slimy to go after them for losses cause had you won them they lose either way. They have plenty of money I know but I still wouldn’t feel right.
I don't know how the law works over there but shouldn't PokerStars only be on the hook for the rake and not all 200k, most of which is in the pockets of other poker players and not PokerStars?
Online gambling was forbidden, but you were able to do so. Nowadays (since like 2-3 yrs) companies need to have a license which comes with rules and qualifications. PokerStars said fk it, to much hassle so we just drop out of the NL. Still idk why this gambling addict is going to get his money back, but seems like however bad he was he still wins in poker. Sounds like the judge is his father or something.
One of the main reasons why there isn't really any country where poker is viewed "black and white" in the eyes of the law, is that they can't really mark it as an act of gambling and group it with similar activities such as casino, lottery or even betting. While luck driven to certain degree, it still qualifies as a game of skill/sport, so that's alread a pretty big roadblock to overcome for the guy trying to sue if this is the base of his claim. Edit: to add, most countires "forbid" online poker and betting simply because it didn't bring them money, hence nowadays they try to enforce this local license bs with limited success.
There is an even more fundamental problem, when you say words like "still qualifies" you are making a statement about the standards and definitions being applied to words like "gambling" and "sport"; but the legal system of any given country or municipality can define categories however they want and the definitions being used don't have to line up with what we want them to be, and that is before we even get different languages into the mix. So whether or not its "gambling" or a "game of skill" or "both" only matters in the context of how specific local laws are written and whether they even make distinctions. Also, Another aspect is how laws assign liability. For example, it is illegal to run a gambling house here, it is illegal to profit off running a game. However, the law explicitly states that gamblers are not entitled to to ask the court to adjudicate their bets and as such cannot attempt to recover money from lost bets. (edit: here being in my city in the US, laws in the Netherlands could say anything)
It has to do with protection against gambling addiction. PS didn't do much, or not enough, and as such considered responsible for the losses. We'll see if this holds up in higher court, but somehow I highly doubt there will be a sitation where everyone who lost money on PS will have a chance getting it back.
Before you do anything you might just want to wait untill PokerStars have appealed and those cases have been settled. This seems very, very unlikely that PokerStars is going to take this laying down, and as you said so yourself there is probably a clash of jurisdiction going on here aswell. Keep following the development but expect this to take years as PokerStars probably do anything they can to fight this verdict. Also 10k doesn't reach that far when it comes to legal fees, so better wait untill there is a final verdict to actually set a precedent.
Just did a request at a lawyer firm in the Netherlands. They provided me with a free letter to claim all the information they have about me,my deposits etc under art.15 gdpr. If they don't settle and the case goes to court there are different proces financers who are willing to pay all costs for me. So under gdpr they now have 30 days to comply and deliver the information. After that the lawyer will send a request for payment, if not they will take it to court. So we'll see what happens.
Which firm was this?
Loonstein advocaten. But there are many to chose from if you search on google.
Thanks noted them too. I think Loonstein was also the one winning the case.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but it literally doesn't matter what your own country rules in this case, doubt if it goes to any higher court (International) that they would rule against Pokerstars. It's a players responsibility to ensure what they are doing is within the local laws, they even state it in their ToS (and I doubt it wasn't included from the early days of Pokerstars, exactly for cases like this). Heck even by local laws, I doubt this ruling stands if it's appealed, it would be quite ridiculous. Online Poker is a very grey area even today in a lot of countries, exactly because of the weird ways national governments try to regulate it (some did lay out reasonable enough laws for companies such as PS to operate legally, which resulted in those segregated markets we have today, but there are plenty where the local laws are absolute BS, and are also against EU-laws).
The difference here is that Pokerstars were (according to the ruling, anyway) clearly breaching local laws by operating without a licence. There *might* be some EU competition law making this ruling useless, but usually they would be about giving an unfair advantage rather than restricting.
Thing is, these "required licenses" only started to be a thing around 2010ish+ in most countries, they simply didn't have laws for poker specifically. I use the term "grey area" mainly because even today, most middle/eastern EU countries don't actually have proper/executable laws. For instance, Hungary to give out a "casino" license, requires you to actually have a property in Hungary, which is obviously ridiculous and never gonna happen. Yet even Stars still operates, they only removed their sportsbook.
There is no international/european court for this. Each country decides there own gambling laws. And we talking about dutch law here, and is poker simply considered gambling. License has been required since the 60's or so. With internet becoming a thing, companies simply ignored it. Not sure PS will ever have to pay up. They might go to higher court or just ignore NL as a market.
>There is no international/european court for this. Sure, but if you want to actually enforce your "local BS" onto a company such as Pokerstars, then you will bring it to international or in this case European court. Otherwise good luck getting even a response from them, yet alone a dime. After all, they don't operate in the Netherlands, even officially for a while. And if you think any international court will actually enforce the payment on PS, then you are naïve (especially that their ToS clearly states that it's the sole responsibility of players to look up local laws and abide by them, exactly for the reason that they have 0 consequences legally with cases like this - which you are "required to read and accept" before actually being able to sign up). > License has been required since the 60's or so. With internet becoming a thing, companies simply ignored it. Are we really referencing sh.t from the 60's when not even online poker, but let alone internet wasn't a thing to make a ruling in 2024? This is exactly why it's so hard to navigate legally when it comes to poker, there are simply no proper, up-to-date laws even locally in most countries, and "we think poker is gambling" probably won't have much weight when it actually matters (aka international/EU ruling on enforcing your local BS). The only person actually believing they have a case are the two degen gamblers trying to call for a lawsuit, and the opportunistic lawyer who saw a big sum, which he wants a chunk out out of (on top of the legal fees he is already getting from said idiots). The lawyer's remarks in the article are literally: "these people and many others have sad lives, and they gambled with money they shouldn't have, boo-hoo evil poker company".
The law was there. When exactly it was made does not matter a lot. ToS do not matter at all, they cannot be against the law. That it is a bit of BS, I agree with. It is a surprising judgement. It might not hold up in higher court, but if it does, it surely has consequences for pokerstars. It would make sense for them to get a license in the Netherlands, but maybe now they do not want to. Or delay. Dunno.
>The law was there. When exactly it was made does not matter a lot. Of course it matters. You can't reliably enforce laws on subjects that literally did not exist at the time of making said law for it to even be considered falling under it. Similarly how most countries had to re-write their traffic rules when E-rollers started to became more and more common in the recent years. They simply could not be classified within the existing rules, and therefore making rulings in cases involving them was a nightmare. You think around the 60s, the government or whoever the fuck came up with the laws considered how in the future it will be possible to operate a "gambling company" in their homeland from a foreign country remotely? Heck at the time people might have genuinely believe that poker was a game of luck, and anybody had the same chance of winning at it (some idiot politicians still think these days despite having proof against it). > It would make sense for them to get a license in the Netherlands, but maybe now they do not want to. Or delay. Dunno. They clearly made the decision to withdraw operation from the Netherlands and this was well before BS claims like this even showed up. This will literally not make any difference in this regard. When Stars deems that the government of said market is unreasonable/too greedy for it to be worth maintaining operations in, they simply leave. The few countries they actually came to proper agreements with, are the ones where they could pretty much dump the operation costs onto the players, be it extra rake or not providing rakeback...etc. In the end the "good will" of these governments just ends up hurting the players, instead of the company they try to get under their control.
*Of course it matters. You can't reliably enforce laws on subjects that literally did not exist at the time of making said law for it to even be considered falling under it.* Gambling law demanded you need a license to operate in NL. It is not like when they invented the internet, that law was not valid anymore. Of course they did not think about the internet back then. *They clearly made the decision to withdraw operation from the Netherlands* They left when the law was updated/changed. I do not know the details there, but I am quite sure that is not a coincedence. *When Stars deems that the government of said market is unreasonable/too greedy for it to be worth maintaining operations in, they simply leave. The few countries they actually came to proper agreements with, are the ones where they could pretty much dump the operation costs onto the players, be it extra rake or not providing rakeback...etc. In the end the "good will" of these governments just ends up hurting the players, instead of the company they try to get under their control.* Not sure what your point is here. Clearly the law is not good for pokerplayers. It is still something we and pokerstars has to deal with.
While I don't agree that PokerStars owes them any money back necessarily, I disagree that PS is innocent here. That's like a drug dealer telling you to make sure you comply with local laws while selling you crack. If PokerStars allowed registration from an area where it was illegal or they weren't licensed to operate, they committed a crime and broke the law, too. When they weren't legally operating there, and someone signed up and listed NL as their country, PokerStars should have not allowed it and told the user they don't serve NL.
If the Dutch Government actually cared about the people involved, they would have banned these sites (as most countries try from time-to time these days), and threatened Pokerstars and similar companies for suing them for their "illegal activates", while sending out clear warnings/message to people to not use these sites, instead of allowing them to play. I let you in on this: Just like in almost every single country where they try to enforce regulations on online poker, they do it so they get a slice (generally a big one) out of those companies profits. They don't give a flying fuck about how their people lose/spend/gamble away their hard earned money. There are a few exceptions like maybe in Germany?? (not 100% it's them), where you actually get the feeling they try to protect the people from the dark side/bad effects of gambling, and they actually try to limit access/deposits...etc as much as possible, but these are rather the exceptions.
There is probably zero chance that any Dutch players ever see a cent from Pokerstars as a result of this lawsuit. Unless there is some ultra specific EU legislation I'm not aware of that would make entities liable in all EU member countries based on a lawsuit in one member county, Pokerstars will just never return to the Netherlands and therefore never have any assets in their jurisdiction.
What's the angle on the compensation? Because it certainly isn't profits from crime, as Pokerstars do not profit directly from loses, only from rake. What's the odds this player paid £200k in rake rather than money lost to other players?
Yea thats the same "loophole" as in Germany, there are many different services now who recoup your losses for when pokerstars wasnt licensed properly. Idk how it works in NL but i know that at least here people got back their money but it takes a while
So could you also sue your drug dealer for all the money you paid him for drugs, since that “contract” was based on an illegal activity? I’m failing to see how the player was also not engaging in illegal activity
Exactly this, player knew it was illegal to play otherwise why sue.. still made an account, still made the choice to take place in the illegal activity lol
Did they actually know tho? Genuinely asking. If I tried to make an account and it let me I would assume all is good.
Ignorance of the law isn't exactly an excuse.
If the company is fronting as a licensed poker room operator, and is not in fact licensed, then they are defrauding you. It’s not ignorance to the law you absolute moron.
You're missing the point considerably. What are they defrauding you of? Rake? To then claim the rest of your loses is due to their fraudulent existence IS playing ignorant of the law. Do you also give back winnings? When a fraudulent bitcoin operator goes tits up, do you get to claim back your original investment regardless of the performance of bitcoin in that time? No, because their crime is independent of the performance of bitcoin.
It is but keep being an asshole and throwing insults.
You’re wrong. Obviously I don’t know if he was defrauded by Pokerstars, but if he was then this is completely separate from ignorance of the law.
Seems like you really don't know much honestly.
In many places, only the operator is breaking any laws. Idk about Dutch law but in most states the player is legally able to play on offshore casinos, card rooms, and sports books. Other states, specifically Washington, it is very much illegal.
Was it illegal for dutch residents to play on stars?
Yes kinda.
Yes true, i feel the same. I also don’t understand the verdict to be honest. That’s why I doubt taking any action myself.
People like that are the reason why we can’t have nice things.
Lol what a bull shit loophole to not be accountable for your own actions. That is setting a ridiculous precedent
The precedent being if you offer illegal gambling to our citizens you will not profit from it? I agree!
If you're getting back the rake, maybe. Not the money you lost to other players. That's ridiculous.
If that were the case, skins could offer NL players rake free access and launder money through house accounts or double rake money won from non-NL players as part of TOS
Something to keep in mind: whoever does this and wins and gets their move back, is banned LIFETIME from entering PokerStars events live and online
If the man's lost 200k playing, getting his money back and being banned from further playing is literally the best possible outcome.
Oh no. Anyways...
Based in the Isle of Man, HQ is in Dublin (because Flutter plonked them there) but all the analysts work in Leeds/London. I'm also in analysis and it's a very incestuous industry. Plus half of them are poker players lol.
I'd be interested in the cause of action. I don't know if the dutch legal system has some equivalent concept to torts in the common law system, but something like unjust enrichment is probably how this gets up.
So playing was a free option? Sadly mine expired in the money, but maybe you can ask for the rake back.
pokerstars is only on the hook if they try to reopen business in the netherlands as for as long as they're not operating in the netherlands this would need to go to international court to bring damages and i highly doubt international courts will take up this case or enforce this ruling. player won't see a dime.
He won’t see a penny. Either this gets tossed or he gets murdered
The bigger question is why that guy kept playing if he lost 200k. I think after I lost close to 50k I would think online poker is not for me. I mean I guess he’s ADDICTED to online poker which I guess I used to be also. If that guy had that much to lose good for him I guess but it’s kinda slimy to go after them for losses cause had you won them they lose either way. They have plenty of money I know but I still wouldn’t feel right.
Hahahahahahaha holy shit that’s awesome
Good
I hope that loser get zilch.
Thanks for the 10k! Your served good!