Dutch Lottery Claims – Commercial Law, Netherlands

Recently, the Dutch National Forum of SEPA-migration (NFS) received a request from Dutch gaming / lottery companies to allow the ‘non-recallable’ continuous debt collection authorization within the Single Euro Payments Area (SEPA).

Due to the switch to the SEPA system, the debt collection method must be the ‘recallable’ Direct Debit Debt collection (SDD). The companies feared they will suffer a substantial material loss because of SDD, although the obligation to pay remains alive after a recall of the debt collection. The Dutch National Bank (DNB) therefore granted them an exemption from this obligation. [1]

 

The request seems rather contradictory, because in the past various Dutch lotteries used the non-creditworthiness of contestants to waive their obligation to pay the amount won by these contestants on a ticket.

 

A good example is the case of September 29th , 2006 before the Dutch Supreme Court (Dutch: Hoge Raad), between the Dutch National Zip-code lottery (NPL) and a contestant who lost his entitlement to prize-money due to a temporary debt-collection block, caused by an un-allowed debt balance. [2]  His zipcode won EUR 3.845.000, giving this contestant an entitlement to EUR 699.091. However, Rabobank did not lift the debt collection block on his bank account timely, so NPL did not pay because the collection of the lottery-ticket fee due could not take place anymore under their general terms. Later on, Rabobank paid the contestant EUR 349.742 because of a settlement! The contestant laid down a claim with NPL. However, the claim was rejected by the Dutch Supreme Court.

 

Even worse was the case of June 1st , 2007 before the Dutch Supreme Court, between Rabobank and a contestant of the Dutch Lotto, who lost his entitlement to EUR 11.500.000 due to the same circumstances. [3] However, he only sued the Rabobank. Sadly, his claim was rejected by the Dutch Supreme Court.

 

Just recently, a contestant in a Dutch television show called The Hunt for Millions (Dutch: Miljoenenjacht, RTL4) mistakenly pushed the wrong button and won EUR 125.000, but was not able to compete for the grand prize of EUR 5.000.000. He now claims the remaining part of the prize money through his attorney-at-law. He inter alia states that the game was not played fair, because he did not want the game to end, despite of the fact that he pushed the red button. [4]

 

In the earlier case (judgment dated September 29th , 2006) in which NPL was sued up to the Dutch Supreme Court, the claim was inter alia based on NPL not fulfilling its contractual obligations and on a tort by not taking into account the duty of care towards the contestant and taking the wrong point of view with regard to the contestant’s interests. Also, the claim was based on the allegation that NPL used faulty software for which it should be held liable. As mentioned before, this claim was rejected.

  

In the other case (judgment dated June 1st , 2007) in which Rabobank was sued, the claims were also inter alia based on the allegation that Rabobank did not properly fulfil its contractual obligations towards its accountholder to provide credit and its obligations as an assignee towards its account holder and based on a tort. The tort supposedly to have been committed by Rabobank consisted of not taking into account its duty of care towards the client and taking the wrong point of view with regard to the client’s interest. This claim was also rejected by the Dutch Supreme Court.

 

The difference between these interesting cases and the recent one concerning The Hunt for Millions is that in the latter case, it was due to the contestant’s own mistake that he lost. Therefore, the facts are different. We wish the claimant good luck. If you have any question, please contact us.

 

With kind regards,

 

Arnold C. Hoegen Dijkhof, LL.M.

Hoegen Dijkhof Attorneys & Tax Counsellors

De Lairessestraat 127

1075 HJ Amsterdam

T+31 20 462 40 70

F+31 20 462 40 80

www.hd-dutchlawyers.com

www.arcanummanagement.com

 


Links