Key Moments:
- Unlicensed gambling platforms generated €617 million in the first half of 2025, outpacing regulated Dutch operators at €600 million
- CRUKS self-exclusion registrations exceeded 100,060 by mid-2025, with over half joining within the last six months
- The channelization rate fell to 49% as more Dutch wagers shifted to offshore platforms
Regulatory Environment and Player Shifts
The Netherlands’ online gambling sector has experienced significant change since the implementation of the Remote Gambling Act and the CRUKS self-exclusion system in 2021. As the regulatory landscape tightened, Dutch authorities sought to strengthen identity checks, enforce mandatory self-exclusion, restrict bonuses, and introduce robust session controls. However, stricter oversight has encouraged many Dutch players to seek alternatives on foreign or offshore gambling platforms that lie outside Dutch jurisdiction.
In the first half of 2025, activity on unlicensed sites surged, capturing €617 million in spending, surpassing the €600 million generated by Dutch-licensed operators for the first time. This marks a clear trend of funds migrating beyond the borders of the regulated market.
CRUKS Self-Exclusion and Emergence of Workarounds
CRUKS was established as a comprehensive self-exclusion mechanism, designed to block user access to any Dutch-licensed gambling platform once enrolled, either voluntarily or via third-party intervention. By mid-2025, CRUKS had registered over 100,060 self-exclusions, with younger adults making up a notable portion, often opting for long exclusion periods. Of these, approximately 56% joined in the preceding six months, suggesting high turnover and continued interest in the system.
Despite its intent to protect, some individuals look for ways to gamble outside the CRUKS framework, while others prefer to sidestep comprehensive identity checks altogether. Given that CRUKS only applies to Dutch-licensed operators, players often turn to resources such as https://casino.zonder-cruks.com/ for options beyond the national system, seeking less stringent verification and greater perceived autonomy.
Effects of Stricter Policies on Market Dynamics
In response to mounting concerns over gambling addiction, excessive spending, and aggressive promotion, Dutch authorities took additional steps in late 2024. New rules introduced capped monthly deposits, recurring session reminders, tougher advertising restrictions, and stricter operator data-monitoring requirements. While these strategies contributed to a reduction in average losses per player, they also accelerated the exodus to unregulated websites.
Spending on offshore platforms hit €617 million in the first half of 2025, narrowly exceeding the €600 million gross gaming revenue of regulated operators. This was the first instance since 2021 in which unlicensed offerings surpassed the legal marketplace, resulting in a decline in the channelization rate to 49%. This highlights the growing flow of Dutch gambling funds to foreign operators.
Player Motivations Behind Offshore Gambling
A number of recurring motivators have been identified among those who leave the regulated system. The absence of mandatory deposit limits, income verification, and identity checks common to domestic sites is appealing to many. Players cite a preference for platforms that appear more private and less intrusive, with fewer automated reminders or spending notifications. Higher-frequency and larger-stakes gamblers, in particular, report a sense of constraint under regulatory limits and turn to offshore operators that enable larger transactions without added barriers.
Additionally, some users employ VPNs or cross-border financial services to circumvent regional restrictions. Recent demographic analyses indicate that young adults aged 18–23 comprise 23% of active accounts in early 2025, despite making up less than 10% of the adult population – suggesting that younger Dutch gamblers are especially drawn to offshore venues. Overall, the lure of flexibility, privacy and uninterrupted access persists wherever domestic regulation grows stricter.
Trade-offs and Risks Associated with Unlicensed Platforms
Choosing non-licensed sites introduces multiple risks. Without Dutch or EU regulatory supervision, players forfeit protections such as standardized fair-play checks, guaranteed withdrawals, reliable customer dispute resolution, and secure processing of personal information. Investigative reports have revealed instances of non-licensed operators mishandling player data, inconsistent payout rules, and registration of users who would be blocked by responsible-gambling safeguards.
Recent regulatory monitoring data further underscores concern: treatment admissions for gambling issues rose in 2025, and self-exclusions surpassed 101,000. Authorities interpret these trends as indications of escalating harm, even as participation in unregulated gambling rises. Broader migration away from regulated platforms ultimately compromises tools aimed at safeguarding vulnerable players, weakening the effect of Dutch gambling reforms.
Making Informed Choices in a Regulated vs. Offshore Market
Choosing between regulated and offshore gambling environments depends on how much you value accountability, security, privacy, and autonomy. Licensed Dutch operators provide established safeguards, procedures for resolving disputes, and legal recourse if problems arise. Data since the 2024 policy update indicate a drop in average monthly losses among regulated players from about €146 to €119, illustrating the impact of these protective measures.
In contrast, offshore gambling requires individuals to evaluate each operator’s credibility, the security of their withdrawals, and the protection of their data without external guarantees. Gamblers must consider their long-term goals, risk-tolerance, and desired level of transparency before making their choice. Ultimately, the Dutch market is structured to prioritize player safety, while offshore sectors favor accessibility – and each player’s preferences will dictate which ecosystem is most suitable for their needs.
Comparative Table: Dutch-Licensed vs. Offshore Gambling
| Aspect | Dutch-Licensed Operators | Offshore Platforms |
|---|---|---|
| Spending (H1 2025) | €600 million | €617 million |
| Channelization Rate | 49% | 51% |
| Self-Exclusion System | CRUKS enforced | Not enforced |
| Verification Requirements | Strict ID and income checks | Minimal or none |
| Player Safeguards | Mandatory deposit caps, session controls, dispute resolution | Limited to none |
| Average Monthly Loss (Post-2024) | €119 | Not specified |
- Author
Daniel Williams
