Dutch regulator involves bailiff to recoup overdue lottery payments

Kansspelautoriteit begins audit of subscription lotteries
PX Media/Shutterstock

The Dutch gambling regulator, Kansspelautoriteit (KSA), has begun a legal proceeding to recoup penalty fees incurred by lottery operator Finding The Path of Natural Energy (Stichting).

A decision was made by the KSA on 22 October, 2024 to issue Stichting a compulsory penalty amounting to €15,000 per week for a maximum of €60,000 in the time the penalty was outstanding.

The infringement was an alleged failure on Stichting’s side to provide a clear description of where its proceeds go to, as lottery organisers in the Netherlands are required to pay 40% of that sum to charities.

With the maximum penalty amount reached, the KSA highlighted that it had reached out to Stichting on three separate occasions in January 2025, informing of a follow-up litigation if the penalty is not paid out.

The case has now been handed over to the Dutch Public Prosecutor’s Office for a further investigation, with a judicial bailiff getting involved.

Announcing the process publicly is part of the KSA’s transparency policies, which aim to inform businesses and consumers about potential risks involved in the commercial dealings with entities who do not comply with their financial obligations.

Stichting was preemptively informed by the KSA that such a publication will follow, to which the lottery provider responded on 29 January 2026, disputing that there is a payment refusal or that it is “unreliable”, as described by the regulator.

An appeal was then filed with the court, with Stichting arguing that the case should not be published until the court produces an official statement, otherwise this could be considered as damaging to its reputation.

The KSA has remained firm in its position, however, with the Management Board concluding: “Only if the interest of a business to prevent disclosure in a specific case outweighs the societal interest described above will an exception be made.

“In this case it has not been shown that there are facts and circumstances giving reason to make such an exception.”