Ksa Orders Endorphina to Pull Slots From Illegal Dutch Sites
The Kansspelautoriteit has served a binding instruction on slot developer Endorphina. Note who the target is: the supplier, not an operator. The order covers the company's Maltese and Cypriot entities. In the regulator's view those entities didn't do enough to keep Endorphina titles off websites that are illegal in the Netherlands. That failure, the Ksa says, amounts to promoting unlicensed gambling under Article 1(1)(b) of the Betting and Gaming Act (Wet op de kansspelen).
Back in July the Ksa flagged its intention to act. It repeated the warning in September, then issued the instruction dated 19 October 2026. A separate publication decision, released under the same date, makes the order public. Inspectors worked from Dutch IP addresses. Endorphina games turned up on illegal sites in January and February. Follow-up checks in June found the titles on 19 websites. Endorphina says it tightened arrangements with distribution partners and added preventive restrictions in July 2026. The problem didn't go away. Between January and September, the games appeared on at least 28 different unlicensed sites.
Endorphina disputes the finding, and its core argument is status. It's a B2B supplier. It doesn't offer gambling to players itself. Two further points carry the defence. The Maltese entity serves the licensed Dutch market, so in the company's view it should sit outside the instruction. And there's no proof, it says, that it knowingly supplied illegal operators. The Ksa rejected the corporate-structure argument outright. Splitting operations between entities didn't change the analysis.
That rejection matters beyond this one file. Dutch enforcement has moved up the supply chain. Three days after the Endorphina decision was dated, on 22 October 2026, the Ksa fined EOD Code SRL €37m for illegal gambling offered in the Netherlands through sites including Instantcasino and Skyhills. A record penalty, and it hit the operator side. The Endorphina order goes after the content feeding it.
The pattern isn't purely Dutch. In the UK, the Gambling Commission reached a settlement with Evolution over supplying unlicensed sites. Read together, the two cases show regulators asking not only who offers games to players, but who supplies them. For suppliers the practical lesson is blunt. A licence in a regulated market may not shield a group whose games surface elsewhere.
Distribution agreements and downstream monitoring are now part of the compliance picture. The Ksa treated Endorphina's corporate structure as irrelevant to the question of where its slots were playable. That's the part suppliers should read twice. Contracts with partners don't insulate a developer if the titles remain reachable from Dutch IPs.
The clock is running. Endorphina has six weeks to lodge an objection. Filing one won't pause its obligation to comply. Until the Ksa says otherwise, the instruction stands, and the supplier's next move is either a formal challenge or a demonstrated clean-up of where its games can be played.