jili tutorial

VNLOK Takes Meta to Court Over Illegal Gambling Ads: A Comprehensive Guide to the DSA Case

By jili tutorial · October 5, 2026

VNLOK Takes Meta to Court Over Illegal Gambling Ads: A Comprehensive Guide to the DSA Case

On Monday, 28 September, the Dutch gambling trade association VNLOK (Vereniging Nederlandse Online Kansspelaanbieders) summoned Meta before the Amsterdam court, initiating proceedings that test the boundaries of the European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA). The association is seeking stronger measures to prevent illegal gambling advertisements from reaching Dutch consumers on Facebook and Instagram. This case has direct implications for licensed operators competing in the Dutch market and could set a precedent for how very large online platforms (VLOPs) must handle systemic risks related to illegal content.

VNLOK’s action is not merely about individual ad takedowns; it challenges Meta’s overall risk assessment and mitigation duties under the DSA. The outcome will likely influence how platforms balance their obligations to block illegal content against the prohibition of general monitoring.

Background: The Dutch Online Gambling Market and VNLOK’s Role

The Netherlands legalised online gambling in October 2021, creating a regulated market with strict licensing requirements. Licensed operators must comply with advertising restrictions, including bans on targeting minors and limits on the volume and placement of ads. However, illegal (unlicensed) gambling sites continue to operate, often reaching Dutch consumers through social media platforms.

VNLOK represents the interests of licensed Dutch online gambling providers. Its core argument is that Meta’s platforms allow unlicensed competitors to advertise freely, undermining the regulated market and exposing consumers to unregulated gambling risks. The association claims that over 90% of the gambling adverts it examined on Facebook originated from illegal sites. (This figure is based on VNLOK’s own analysis; it has not been verified by a court and may not represent all gambling adverts on Meta’s platforms.)

Systemic Risk Assessment and Mitigation (Articles 34 and 35)

The DSA imposes distinct duties on very large online platforms—those with over 45 million monthly active users in the EU. Meta qualifies as a VLOP. Under Articles 34 and 35, these platforms must:

VNLOK argues that Meta’s current approach—relying largely on reactive takedowns—is insufficient to address the systemic risk of illegal gambling adverts reaching Dutch users.

Platform Liability and the Prohibition of General Monitoring (Articles 6 and 8)

Article 6 provides a conditional exemption from liability for hosted content, meaning Meta is not automatically liable for illegal content posted by users, provided it acts expeditiously to remove or disable access upon becoming aware. Article 8 prohibits Member States from imposing a general obligation on platforms to monitor all user content.

However, these liability exemptions do not override the distinct duties under Articles 34 and 35. The case turns on whether Meta’s failure to prevent illegal adverts from appearing in the first place constitutes a breach of its risk mitigation obligations, even though it is not required to proactively monitor every post.

The Case in Detail: What VNLOK Seeks

Claims and Evidence

VNLOK has presented the following evidence to the court:

Remedies Requested

VNLOK is asking for:

Importantly, VNLOK has not requested a specific filtering system. Possible measures that the court might consider include:

Limitations and Court’s Assessment

VNLOK’s published announcements do not disclose the full legal arguments, the precise Dutch procedural basis for its standing, or every legal provision it relies on. Therefore, the case should not yet be described as an established competition-law or DSA violation. The allegations remain to be assessed by the court.

Broader Regulatory Landscape: Comparative Examples

Italy: AGCOM Enforcement

Italy’s communications regulator, AGCOM, issued a December 2023 enforcement decision against Meta under Italy’s national gambling advertising ban. AGCOM found that Meta had not effectively blocked adverts for illegal gambling sites. This action relied on domestic law, not the DSA, but the outcome underscores the pressure platforms face across Europe.

Germany: GGL Achievements

The Gemeinsame Glücksspielbehörde der Länder (GGL), Germany’s joint gambling authority, reported that restrictions on Google and Meta adverts contributed to a measurable decline in illegal gambling advertising. The German approach combines voluntary agreements with platforms and regulatory enforcement, showing that proactive measures can work.

Spain: DGOJ Guidelines

Spain’s Dirección General de Ordenación del Juego (DGOJ) has set out duties to remove illegal gambling content. However, primary evidence does not establish a comparable current case against Meta in Spain. The Spanish framework focuses on content removal after notification, rather than systemic prevention.

United Kingdom: Gambling Commission Criticism

UK Gambling Commission executive director Tim Miller has publicly criticised Meta’s response to illegal casino advertising. The Dutch proceedings could test whether calls for more proactive action can translate into enforceable court obligations, influencing UK debates even though the DSA does not apply directly.

Indonesia: Different Regulatory Context

Outside Europe, regulators are also pressing platforms over gambling content. Indonesia is strengthening its gambling-content controls, but the legal framework and enforcement routes differ significantly. Nonetheless, the shared operational challenge is how to make removal obligations effective across diverse platforms and jurisdictions.

Practical Implications for Operators and Platforms

For Licensed Operators

For Meta and Other VLOPs

Unresolved Questions and Outlook

The Distinction Between Takedown and Prevention

The legal question extends beyond whether individual adverts are removed after being reported. Under the DSA, platforms must assess and mitigate systemic risks. This means they cannot simply wait for reports and then act; they have a duty to design their systems to minimise the risk of illegal content spreading in the first place. The case will test how far this obligation reaches.

The Role of the European Commission

VNLOK’s separate complaint to the European Commission could lead to a formal investigation and sanctions, including fines of up to 6% of Meta’s global annual turnover. The Commission has powers under the DSA to issue binding decisions, but its timeline is uncertain.

Potential Precedent for Other Markets

A court order in the Netherlands would not automatically settle how other European markets enforce their own rules. However, it would provide a legal benchmark—especially for other national gambling regulators considering similar actions. The case also highlights the tension between Article 8 (no general monitoring obligation) and Articles 34/35 (duty to mitigate systemic risks). This tension may require further interpretation by the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Conclusion

The Amsterdam court case brought by VNLOK against Meta represents a pivotal moment in the enforcement of the Digital Services Act. It asks whether a very large online platform must go beyond reactive takedowns and implement systemic controls to prevent illegal gambling adverts from reaching consumers. While the outcome is uncertain, the proceedings already put pressure on platforms to rethink their advertising policies. For licensed operators, the case offers hope of a fairer competitive landscape—but also the likelihood of increased compliance burdens. For the broader regulatory community, it provides a real-world test of the DSA’s risk-mitigation framework.