The Dutch Gaming Authority has escalated its enforcement campaign against unauthorized digital betting platforms, imposing weekly penalty payments on Polymarket for offering prediction contracts to players in the Netherlands without a license. At the center of the dispute lies a regulatory clash: while Polymarket views its contracts as informational prediction tools, the Kansspelautoriteit (KSA) classifies them as illegal games of chance. The fine—EUR 420,000 per week, capped at EUR 840,000—signals a firm stance against unlicensed operators and underscores the Netherlands’ zero-tolerance approach toward election-linked wagering and novel financialized betting models.

Polymarket Under Regulatory Scrutiny in the Netherlands

The Kansspelautoriteit (KSA), the Netherlands’ gambling regulator, has formally sanctioned Polymarket, the prediction markets brand operated by Adventure One, for providing what Dutch authorities deem to be unauthorized gambling services to local players.

In its official communication, the KSA stated that Polymarket made games of chance accessible to consumers in the Netherlands without holding a Dutch gaming license. Under the country’s regulatory framework, any operator offering chance-based wagering products to Dutch residents must secure formal authorization. Polymarket has not done so.

The regulator acknowledged the platform’s rapid ascent in popularity, particularly in recent months. However, the absence of a domestic license placed the company squarely outside the legal perimeter of the regulated Dutch online gambling market.

Political Event Contracts Draw Heightened Attention

A key flashpoint in the enforcement action involves Polymarket’s event-based contracts tied to Dutch elections. According to the KSA, these markets have attracted notable interest among Dutch users seeking financial exposure to political outcomes.

Polymarket has gained international attention for similar political contracts elsewhere, and the Dutch authority noted that its election-linked offerings have generated increasing engagement locally. From the regulator’s standpoint, such activity compounds the compliance concern—not only because of licensing issues but also due to the broader societal implications associated with wagering on democratic processes.

While Polymarket reportedly maintains that its products do not constitute gambling, the KSA has taken a different legal view. Under Dutch law, contracts in which participants stake funds on uncertain outcomes with the prospect of monetary gain are treated as games of chance unless explicitly exempted. Prediction markets do not currently enjoy such an exemption in the Netherlands.

The Netherlands Rejects the Prediction Market Model

The enforcement action also clarifies a broader regulatory principle: prediction markets are not permitted under Dutch gambling legislation.

The KSA revealed that it had previously contacted Polymarket and formally requested that the company remove its offerings and cease accepting funds from players located in the Netherlands. According to the regulator, this warning did not produce tangible changes. The authority stated that “no visible change has occurred,” and that the platform remained accessible to Dutch users.

In response, the KSA imposed a coercive penalty structure. Polymarket now faces EUR 420,000 per week in penalty payments, up to a maximum of EUR 840,000, should it fail to comply. The regulator further indicated that a turnover-based fine could be levied at a later stage, raising the prospect of materially higher financial exposure if non-compliance persists.

For investors and industry observers, this structure is significant. Weekly accumulating fines introduce both financial and reputational pressure, particularly for digital-first operators whose business models depend on cross-border scale.

Regulatory Philosophy: Zero Tolerance for Unlicensed Platforms

Ella Seijsener, director of permits and supervision at the KSA, framed the decision within the broader rise of prediction markets globally. While the United States has seen an explosion in the visibility and usage of such platforms, the Netherlands has also experienced spillover demand.

However, Seijsener made the regulator’s position unambiguous. She emphasized that, irrespective of global trends, prediction markets remain outside the permissible product scope under Dutch law. Even fully licensed Dutch operators are prohibited from offering these types of contracts.

Her comments underscored two pillars of the authority’s stance:

Social risk concerns, including the potential influence or distortion of elections.

Strict adherence to the licensing regime, under which unlicensed entities have “nothing to do” with the Dutch market.

The language signals that the KSA is not merely enforcing technical compliance, but actively defending the structure and integrity of its regulated ecosystem.

Strategic Implications for Cross-Border Betting Platforms

For global operators operating at the intersection of finance, information markets, and gaming, the Dutch action serves as a cautionary precedent.

First, it highlights that jurisdictional interpretations of prediction markets vary sharply. A platform that classifies itself as a forecasting tool may nonetheless fall under gambling statutes in certain territories.

Second, it reinforces the Netherlands’ assertive regulatory posture. Since opening its regulated online gambling market, the country has maintained a strong enforcement record against unlicensed providers. The imposition of recurring penalty payments—rather than a one-off sanction—illustrates a willingness to escalate pressure until compliance is achieved.

Third, the mention of a potential turnover-based fine suggests that enforcement could scale in proportion to business volume. For operators with significant Dutch user participation, the financial calculus may shift rapidly.

Broader Market Context and Takeaways for Prediction Platforms

The case unfolds against a backdrop of increasing global scrutiny of novel wagering models. As prediction markets blur the boundaries between financial derivatives, political forecasting, and gambling, regulators are being forced to articulate clear classifications.

From an investor standpoint, three strategic considerations emerge:

Regulatory arbitrage is narrowing. Authorities are increasingly coordinated and technologically equipped to monitor cross-border platforms.

Election-linked products carry heightened sensitivity. Social and political externalities elevate enforcement risk.

Licensing remains the core defensive moat. Operators that fail to secure domestic authorization face escalating penalties and possible market exclusion.

In the Netherlands, the message is unequivocal: prediction markets, regardless of their branding or intellectual framing, are treated as gambling products. Without a KSA license, participation in the Dutch market is impermissible.

For Polymarket, the immediate question is compliance. For the broader industry, the episode serves as a regulatory inflection point—one that underscores how quickly innovation can collide with established legal frameworks.

In an era where digital platforms scale faster than statutes evolve, the decisive variable remains regulatory alignment. And in the Netherlands, that alignment is non-negotiable.