Holland Casino recognizes the existence of VIP Card
A gambling addict who lost €250,000 at Holland Casino Amsterdam has triggered a political discussion about the responsibilities of the Netherlands’ state gambling monopoly. Following media coverage in Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf, Socialist Party MP Michiel van Nispen posed critical questions to Minister Sander Dekker, providing unique insights into Holland Casino’s operations.
The controversy began on July 8 with a De Telegraaf article titled “Charles lost a quarter million in casino: ‘I kept walking to the ATM’.” The player, referred to as “Charles” in the article, lost €250,000 across various Holland Casino venues over two years.
VIP Treatment Under Scrutiny
What makes this case particularly significant is Charles’s claim that Holland Casino treated him as a VIP player, even offering him free transportation to their casinos. This raises ethical questions about such practices at a state-owned enterprise that is simultaneously responsible for gambling prevention.
In his parliamentary questions, Van Nispen sought to determine whether Holland Casino actually issues special VIP cards and how the company handles players who lose substantial amounts. Minister Dekker confirmed the existence of the VIP program in his response, though he provided no details about the specific benefits tied to this status.
Legal Action Initiated
Charles has now taken legal action against Holland Casino, holding the state enterprise partially responsible for his extreme losses. He demands that the casino account for its role in enabling his gambling addiction.
Charles’s lawyer argues that Holland Casino failed to recognize and intervene with signs of gambling addiction. Instead, the casino allegedly focused on retaining the player by offering VIP treatment.
State Monopoly’s Dual Role
This case highlights the conflicting responsibilities of Holland Casino. As a state enterprise, it must promote responsible gambling and prevent addiction problems. Yet as a commercial operation, it has financial interests in high player turnover.
Van Nispen’s parliamentary questions address this tension directly. He wants to know what measures Holland Casino takes to identify problematic gambling behavior and whether the VIP program is compatible with the state monopoly’s prevention duties.
Growing Focus on Gambling Harm
Charles’s story fits into a broader societal discussion about gambling harm and operator responsibilities. With the liberalization of the online gambling market in October 2021, attention to responsible gambling has only intensified.
While Holland Casino regularly emphasizes its commitment to responsible gambling, cases like Charles’s demonstrate that players still fall through the cracks. The outcome of the legal proceedings and potential political follow-up may clarify the boundaries of gambling operators’ responsibilities.
International Context
This case reflects global debates about VIP programs in the gambling industry. Many jurisdictions are questioning whether offering special treatment to high-spending players conflicts with harm prevention obligations. The Netherlands, with its state-controlled approach to land-based gambling, provides an interesting test case for balancing commercial interests with public health responsibilities.
The Dutch gambling landscape has undergone significant changes, with online gambling legalization bringing new operators and increased scrutiny of existing practices. Holland Casino’s handling of VIP players may set precedents for the broader regulated market.
Players struggling with gambling problems can access free help and advice through gambling addiction support services in their respective countries.