Assessment of Online Gambling Risk Analysis in the Netherlands Reveals Shortcomings
A recent investigation by the Kansspelautoriteit (KSA), the Netherlands’ gaming regulator, has highlighted significant deficiencies in the risk analysis systems currently deployed by licensed online gambling operators. The report, which was released on Friday, asserts that these frameworks are failing to provide adequate protection for players.
The KSA’s research, conducted during 2024 and 2025, scrutinized the methodologies used by operators holding Dutch online gambling licenses to assess risks associated with high-risk games, particularly online slots. These risk analysis systems are crucial components of a licensed operator’s obligation to safeguard players from potential harms when engaging in gambling activities.
Despite the importance of these systems, the KSA criticized their effectiveness, noting that the time and financial resources required to conduct these analyses yield minimal additional protection for players.
Concerns About Current Methods
The KSA expressed doubts regarding the validity of the risk analysis methods used by operators, identifying five distinct approaches including Asterig and Gamgard. While Asterig, introduced in 2010 and updated in 2013, is accessible to all operators, the KSA raised issues about its reliability and appropriateness, suggesting that its scoring criteria are insufficiently corroborated.
Gamgard, on the other hand, is viewed merely as a preliminary evaluation tool, only assessing a limited array of risk factors. The KSA pointed out concerns about its validity and transparency, coupled with the fact that it is not publicly available for scrutiny.
"The current methodologies were developed during a time when the online market in the Netherlands was not regulated," the KSA noted. "To our knowledge, these frameworks have not evolved since the legalization of online gambling on October 1, 2021, despite academic critiques advocating for advancements."
Moreover, the KSA discovered that most operators tend to evaluate risks on a game category basis, rather than assessing each game individually. This broad-brush approach could lead to certain games being improperly classified as lower risk, given that the existing regulations do not stipulate specific requirements for game-level analysis.
Inconsistency in Outcomes Raises Alarm
Another point of contention for the KSA was the inconsistent outcomes from risk analyses even when the same games were examined. The study revealed that differing consultancies and methodologies could yield varied results for the same title, raising questions about the reliability of these assessments across different operators.
"Even with the same consultancy involved, risk outcomes varied significantly among licensees," the KSA remarked. This inconsistency indicates that the risk analyses are not standardized across the board, leading to potential disparities in how effectively these risks are managed.
Further complicating matters, the independence and expertise of the analysts conducting these reviews were often ambiguous, with the KSA flagging a lack of clarity surrounding who qualifies as "independent." The qualifications of some evaluators also raised concerns about their ability to conduct thorough assessments.
Path Forward for Regulatory Improvements
Given these findings, the KSA concluded that the current risk assessment methodologies are insufficient and initiated discussions with the Dutch Ministry of Justice and Security to explore necessary enhancements. The regulator articulated a vision for a more uniform approach to risk analysis within the online gambling sector, emphasizing the need for systems that accurately reflect the true risks of various games.
As the online gambling landscape continues to evolve in the Netherlands, it is crucial for all stakeholders to prioritize player protection and ensure that risk assessment processes are robust, transparent, and effective.