Gambling providers are legally obliged to verify that players are registered in the CRUKS register. This obligation applies to both land-based gambling providers and online gambling providers. An interesting recent ruling by the North Holland District Court focused on the scope of this legal obligation. A player claimed back the money he gambled from a slot machine hall because, despite registering in the CRUKS register, he had entered and participated in games of chance, using a friend's ID. In this case, the court found that the operator has failed in its obligation to identify each player upon entry and is therefore liable for the player's loss.
Since 1 October 2021, the Central Register for the Exclusion of Gambling, better known as the CRUKS Register, has been in force. The CRUKS register is a national register where players with gambling problems can register. By registering in the CRUKS register, a person cannot participate in risky games of chance, including slot machines, gaming casinos and online gambling, for at least 6 months. Registration can be either mandatory or voluntary. All Dutch slot machines halls must check each player for registration in the CRUKS register upon entry in accordance with article 30u, paragraph 1, sub b of the Gambling Act.
Judging by the text of the ruling, this case involved a player with a gambling addiction who registered himself in the CRUKS register. As a result, he was no longer able to participate in licensed games of chance. Nevertheless, with a friend's ID, he went to the relevant slot machine hall, where he was admitted based on the friend's identity.
In this way, the player has given himself access to the provider's arcade. Here, the player suffered damage because he gambled an amount of €24,030. Due to evidence problems with regard to the full amount, he is now claiming a sum of €14,030.
The question, however, is whether, under all the circumstances, it can be said that the provider failed to comply with its duty of care towards the player and thus acted unlawfully. After all, the player deliberately committed identity fraud and thus provided himself access to the slot machine hall.
Indeed, the provider's defence was that she did not act unlawfully, as she fulfilled its duty of care by investigating the player's identity and a possible entry in the CRUKS register. The amount of the claim was also disputed, as the player's winnings were not included in the claim.
The subdistrict court ruled that the provider had failed to comply with its duty of care. The photo on the driver's license did not match the player, so the provider should have done more to verify that the driver's license shown belonged to the player. Just asking for name and date of birth was not enough. An alternative form of identification should have been requested. An important consideration is that the provider had to take into account the fact that gambling addicts - despite a possible registration in the CRUKS register - will try to gain improper access to an arcade or casino. For that reason, the provider is obliged to compensate for the damage.
The player was also completely in the right with regard to the amount of damage. The damage was determined at the amount that the player gambled. The subdistrict court decided that this included an amount of €14,030, as the provider had not sufficiently substantiated that the accumulated funds were actually won by the player and were not given to an employee who had subsequently usurped them.
Even the provider's argument that the player himself was to blame for the damage by knowingly committing identity fraud was not accepted by the subdistrict court. He considered that it is precisely the characteristic of addiction that the addict often takes extreme measures to admit to their addiction, including using other people's IDs to bypass access controls. The court therefore did not go along with the provider's own fault defense.
In conclusion, it appears that providers have a significant identification requirement to verify that players are registered in the CRUKS register. Even if there is intentional identity fraud, the provider's duty of care weighs more heavily. The provider should have done more to determine whether the player's identity was correct, especially now that the photo gave reason to do so.
It is not known whether an appeal has been lodged against this ruling by one of the parties to the proceedings. For now, there is therefore a court ruling that follows the provider's enhanced duty of care with regard to the CRUKS controls. In the event of the slightest degree of doubt, providers must therefore carry out additional checks to verify the player's identity. Insofar as this doubt cannot be removed, the player may therefore not be admitted.
Do you have questions about this blog? Be sure to contact the Vissers Legal gaming/gambling team.
Mr. Stef van der Veldt
lawyer
Mr. Kjell Klomp
Legal advisor
.svg)
