FairPlay Legal has stopped funding Dutch gambling-loss claims and is terminating its existing files after the Hoge Raad, the Netherlands' Supreme Court, ruled that the absence of a Dutch licence does not by itself render an online operator's contracts void.

As reported by Casino Zorgplicht, the Court held in its 3 July 2026 judgment that the Wet op de kansspelen, the Dutch gaming act, never had the effect of invalidating contracts with operators acting contrary to article 1(1)(a). That conclusion removes the central legal theory underpinning thousands of claims seeking recovery of losses incurred with unlicensed offshore operators. The ruling followed preliminary questions referred in June 2024 by the district courts of Amsterdam and North Holland, and was consistent with the advisory opinion delivered by Advocate General Lindenbergh in November 2025.

FairPlay Legal withdrew financing immediately, telling the publication that the claims no longer offer "legal and commercial perspective." The funder, which worked exclusively with advocaat Pepijn Le Heux on the portfolio, said it will continue to pursue a separate category of cases in which operators refuse to pay out winnings. It has no connection to Fair Play Casino.

The decision illustrates how quickly a consumer-claims portfolio built on a single statutory argument can be wound down once an apex court closes the theory. Dutch gambling-loss claims had attracted significant funded volume over the past three years, and the ruling effectively strands files that had not yet reached judgment or settlement.

Linklaters has called for a new standalone hurdle at the certification stage of UK antitrust collective proceedings, arguing that claims should advance only where their expected financial benefits substantially outweigh the costs of bringing them.

As reported by PYMNTS, citing Law.com International, the firm submitted the proposal to the Department for Business and Trade's consultation on "Swifter and simpler competition redress, regulatory appeals and competition enforcement," published in July with responses due 25 September. Linklaters argued that the Competition Appeal Tribunal should apply heightened scrutiny to novel or unestablished theories of harm, and framed its concerns around litigation costs, third-party funding structures and the proportion of any award that ultimately reaches class members.

The submission enters a debate that has intensified since the Supreme Court's decision in Merricks, widely read as lowering the certification threshold and opening the door to a substantial pipeline of opt-out claims. Critics of the regime point to outcomes such as Waterside v Mowi, where the distribution of recoveries between class members, their lawyers and their funders drew judicial attention.

The proposal sits in direct tension with submissions from the claimant and funding side, including the International Legal Finance Association's call for the government to clarify rather than rebuild the opt-out regime. With the consultation window now closed, attention shifts to whether the Department for Business and Trade treats funder economics as a certification question or leaves it to the Tribunal's existing discretion.