On 7 November 2025, the Ksa first issued a warning to the respondent's company for organising games of chance without a licence. A conversation via Microsoft Teams took place between the Ksa and the respondent to explain the rules and the conditions under which a promotional game of chance may be offered under the Code of Conduct. Following that conversation, the unlicensed games of chance were removed from the company's website and social media.

Between 14 and 18 March 2026, Ksa supervisors investigated the company's social media accounts and found that an unlicensed game of chance was once again being offered. The Ksa had emailed the respondent on 17 March 2026 its intention to impose an order under penalty and to make clear that the planned draw on 18 March 2026 was not permitted. The respondent's lawyer made contact with a Ksa on the morning of 18 March. Despite this, the draw went ahead via a YouTube livestream that same morning. 

The Ksa considered that the ‘promotional game of chance’ in question, did not meet the conditions set out in the Code of Conduct: 

1. Not genuinely promotional in nature
   The Ksa found that the respondent had organised a game of chance and then attached a product to it, rather than using the game to promote a product or service. Participants had to buy a product to enter, but it was clear from the social media content that the car was the main attraction. The respondent stated in videos that "this is the biggest promotion of 2026" and that the car was being given away because the company had received 50,000 Trustpilot reviews, not in order to promote a specific product. The Ksa found that the game of chance was not directed at promoting a specific product.
2. Terms and conditions not easily accessible
   The game was promoted exclusively via social media, while the terms and conditions were only available on the website. Under Article 7 of the Code of Conduct, terms and conditions must be easily accessible to both participants and potential participants. The Ksa considered it insufficient that participants could consult the terms when placing an order on the website. They needed to be visible and accessible where the game was being promoted.
3. The draw was not impartial
   The draw was not conducted impartially. An employee of the respondent drew a letter from a barrel to select the winner. Under Article 4(5) of the Code of Conduct, an impartial draw must be conducted by a notary, a bailiff, a person with no direct interest in the outcome, or by an instrument that can be qualified as selecting winners impartially.

The order requires the respondent to refrain from offering any unlicensed game of chance, on pain of a penalty of EUR 150,000 for each separate instance of non-compliance, up to a maximum of EUR 450,000. Because the order requires abstention rather than positive action, no grace period for compliance was necessary. The order has effect for a period of three years, though the respondent may apply for its lifting after one year pursuant to Article 5:34 of the General Administrative Law Act. The decision is open to objection within six weeks of its date.

This decision is a clear enforcement signal in an area that has, until now, seen relatively little public regulatory action in the Netherlands. If your business runs promotional games of chance in the Dutch market, there are several practical steps worth considering:

• Check whether your activity genuinely promotes a product or service. The Ksa's analysis makes clear that attaching a product purchase requirement to a prize draw does not automatically make the activity a “promotional game of chance" per the Code of Conduct. The promotional purpose must be genuine and apparent.
• Ensure your terms and conditions are where your audience is. If you are promoting a game via social media, the terms and conditions must be easily accessible on those same channels, not just on your website.
• Use an impartial draw mechanism. Draws conducted by employees will not satisfy the requirements of the Code of Conduct. Consider engaging a notary, bailiff or other independent third party.
• Take warnings seriously. The Ksa's decision to escalate from a warning to an order under penalty was driven significantly by the respondent's (repeated) failure to comply and its decision to proceed with the draw despite intervention by the regulator.