European Gaming Lawyer magazine Spring 2014 | Page 12

from 75% to 80%, the notified bill contains
no changes with regards to fees, levies and
contributions. Quite remarkably the Ministry
presented new reports from H2GC which
lead to different conclusions than previously
with respect to the anticipated level of
channelization and expected revenues for
coming years. The Ministry concluded that
the combination of the tax rate of 20% on
GGR and the channelization objective of 80%
is “a realistic estimate of what’s possible”.
Practice will show if the aforementioned
will indeed be the case and if the
Netherlands does not end up in a similar
situation to France.
Product scope
A subtle change is made in the bill with
regards to the channels on which games
are permitted to be offered. The notified
bill indicates that the primary focus is on
Internet offering. Admissibility of other
channels (TV, smartphones) will be
covered by secondary legislation. Another
subtle change is that contrary to the
consultation text the gaming offers are
divided into two broad categories i.) player
vs. player (poker and exchange betting are
mentioned) and ii.) player vs. operator
(casino games and fixed odds betting
are mentioned). Live-betting on sports
is referred to as “have a strong addictive
nature, which makes regulation necessary”.
So in general terms casino games, poker
and betting on sports will be regulated.
Event betting, spread betting and online
lotteries remain excluded. Further details
with regards to types of games will be left to
secondary legislation.

12 | European Gaming Lawyer | Spring Issue | 2014

However, somewhat less subtle and catching
the remote gaming sector by surprise is
that remote bingo has been excluded from
the notified bill. Whereas bingo in the
consultation text was categorised as a casino
game, the notified bill qualifies it as a lottery
product. The explanatory memorandum
provides a brief explanation arguing that in
practice the label “bingo” is often used for
different games which are very similar to
lottery products and currently the lottery
products offered by the Vriendenloterij
(“Friendslottery”: part of Novamedia
consortium). So it would seem that lobby
efforts by the incumbent charity lotteries
have paid off so far. The explanatory
memorandum continues and states that “As
lotteries, as mentioned before, will not be
covered by the regulation of remote gaming,
such bingo forms are not permitted to be
offered under a remote gaming license”.
This implies there is no outright ban for
remote bingo and there might be still room
for other forms of bingo. Furthermore, the
explanatory memorandum notes that the
demarcation between lottery games and
games which can be offered remotely, will be
detailed in secondary legislation.
Substitution and “Level Playing Field”
During the consultation process and various
other occasions incumbent operators
(and their beneficiaries) stressed that the
regulation of remote gaming would lead to
a substantial decrease in the contribution to
charities and sport. The notified bill reiterates
the importance of such contributions.
However, according to the notified bill these
contributions will not be endangered by

the introduction of a regulatory framework
for remote gaming. On the contrary, these
contributions could increase as incumbent
operators will have the opportunity to
expand their offer, thereby complimenting
their existing offline offer(s).
Incumbent operators have also called for
a “level playing field” to counter a perceived
competitive disadvantage upon market
opening in comparison with remote gaming
operators already active on the market. The
notified bill clearly rejected calls for a “prelaunch” or a “head start” as according to the
notified bill a “level playing field” entails that
similar rules apply to all licence applicants.
This notion does not mean that operators
(remote and incumbents) should have a
similar starting position or market share. At
the same time, the Dutch government is of the
opinion that in relation to the enforcement
policy during the transitional phase the
existing prioritisation criteria must be
tightened. The explanatory memorandum also
notes that the Gaming Authority will clearly
communicate that operators who “persist
in providing games of chance targeting the
Netherlands” will be disqualified from a
future licence. Although the aforementioned
is not further specified it would seem that
the notion “operators persisting in targeting
the Netherlands” refers to operators who
(continue to) breach the prioritisation criteria.
Enforcement
Starting point for the enforcement policy
in the newly regulated regime remains the
objective of channelling as many players
as possible to the locally licensed offer.
Obviously it is not possible to wholly eradicate