On February 13, 2024, the motion by Mirjam Bikker (Christen Unie) to introduce the overarching playing limits was passed by the House of Representatives, with a narrow majority (79 out of 150 MPs) voting in favour. The motion had a clear deadline; the limits should be introduced before the summer. Another salient detail of motion is that players cannot raise the overarching limits on their own. In this blog, the gaming/gambling experts at Vissers Legal will inform you about the latest developments in The Hague.
According to article 4.14 of the Remote Gambling Decree, a licensed provider of online gambling may only register a player after that person has set a number of limits.[1]This includes the deposit, play and session limits, which the player must be able to specify per day, week or month. The player is currently responsible for setting the limits. So the player chooses his own limits.
When the Koa Act was created, it was deliberately decided not to set up a central administration of playing limits, partly for privacy reasons. With the adoption of the Bikker Motion, this will therefore change. There must be a central administration of player limits to which all licensed providers are connected. As a result, the player's limits automatically apply to all licensed providers of online gambling. So if a player reaches the overarching playing limit, he can no longer play with any licensed Dutch provider. For now, the overarching playing limits only refer to the deposit and loss limits.
The motivation for introducing overarching limits is to prevent players from diverting to other providers where they have not yet reached their limit when they reach their limit with one provider. Overarching playing limits would thus play an important role in limiting excessive playing behavior, early detection and timely intervention, according to Minister Weerwind's letters to parliament.
Bikker, a well-known figure in the Hague gambling dossier, proposed a motion to set overarching limits in early February. Here, she called for setting limits for online gambling, which are overarching and cannot be increased further, because a deposit limit and a loss limit will only have an effect in this way. On 13 February 2024, this request was granted because the House of Representatives passed its motion with a narrow majority.
An important part of the Bikker Motion is that the player does not have the opportunity to increase the overarching limits. So even if a player can demonstrate that he can bear the financial consequences of his playing behavior, raising the playing limits is out of the question. In doing so, the motion therefore goes considerably beyond the Rules on Playing Limits and Gaming Behavior, which was recently offered for consultation.
Although the evaluation of the Koa Act is still ongoing, the outgoing cabinet is therefore already taking far-reaching measures in the market for online gambling. Minister Weerwind endorses the concerns expressed in the motion about protecting players and states that he understands the need for overarching deposit and loss limits. However, the proposed timeframe is unrealistic and unattainable. The Minister states that he will have the contours for overarching limits ready by the end of this year and will inform the House of Representatives about this.
In terms of policy, he states that there should be adequate substantiation of what an effective and proportional form of an overarching limit is that can protect players in the best possible way. This will be achieved on the basis of four lines, namely a policy analysis, setting up a technical system and setting up the management and supervision of such a system and consequences for laws and regulations.
De Weerwind also stated that changes must be made to the laws and regulations before the introduction of the motion. Next, the process of consultation, advice (Advisory Board for the Review of Regulatory Pressure, Data Protection Authority, Advisory Department of the Council of State) and notification (European Commission) still needs to take place. An amvb or legislative amendment process will therefore take at least one or two years respectively.
According to the Remote Gambling Act, a license holder must take the following measures with regard to gaming limits:
Before this accepted motion comes into force, the legislation on this point will first have to change. After all, the legal basis for prohibiting raising the playing limits is missing.
The already mentioned amendment to the Koa Regulations, which limits the playing limits per provider, is also currently available for consultation.
The amendment regulation contains additional regulations for license holders who organize remote gambling to take measures and facilities to prevent gambling addiction and to protect participants against the risks of online gambling.
First, the purpose of this regulation is that, when introducing the playing limits, there is a neutral choice architecture that does not direct (prospective) players and where there is a barrier to opting for high playing limits. The license holders are obliged to take appropriate measures to ensure that players can set and change the playing limits in empty input fields without influencing behavior.
There is also a ban on license holders from advertising the information about playing limits or the part of the player interface where players can set or change playing limits, or otherwise auditory and visual in such a way as is strictly necessary to provide information or enter the playing limits. In addition, a contact moment is mandatory if players want to set their limit above a certain limit. The Regulation distinguishes between the maximum limits for young adult adult players. For young adults, a provider must contact the player if they want to set limits higher than €5.35 per day, €37.50 per week or €150.00 per month. For adult players, the limit is €12.50 per day, €87.50 per week and €350.00 per month, respectively.
If the player wishes to exceed the limits mentioned above, a personal contact moment must first follow, via live chat or phone. During this contact moment, the player must confirm that he is willing to forfeit the set limits and the player must be informed of the existence of CRUKS.
Finally, the regulation aims that the playing limits are restrictive when participating in remote gambling and that there are also other measures that moderate gaming behavior while playing. This by informing the player about the playing limits both when logging in and out and at the start of the game, notifying the player if 50% of one of the playing limits has been reached or exceeded and informing the player how long they have been participating after every 30 minutes during a game of chance. The bet must also be shown in euros to appeal to the player's sense of money. And the player should be informed if the minimum bet is lower than the standard bet at the start of a game of chance.
An important detail is that the mandatory playing limits do not apply to players who are already registered at the time the change takes effect. In this way, the amendment to the Regulation will be a heavy burden for new permit holders in particular.
The theme of playing limits will remain at the top of the political agenda in the coming period. The sector is expressing legitimate concerns that the implementation of the Bikker Motion will be a noose for many providers. One may also wonder whether consumer protection benefits from such strict limits. After all, illegal providers have no limits, so you can continue playing indefinitely, with all the consequences that entail. The actual implementation of the Bikkers Motion will be delayed, but providers must indeed take into account the introduction of the mandatory playing limits. The consultation on the Playing Limits and Gaming Behavior Regulations will close on April 3. Until that moment, providers can provide input and make proposals to change the Scheme.
The gaming/gaming experts at Vissers Legal are ready to help you further in the complex web of gambling laws and regulations.
Stef van der Veldt
lawyer
.svg)
