European governments have spent 2026 raising the gambling tax burden on licensed operators at a pace the industry has not seen before, and the evidence is mounting that the increases are not producing the revenue ministries expected. The United Kingdom nearly doubled its remote gaming duty in April. The Netherlands pushed its rate to 37.8% in January. Germany's turnover-based model continues to leak players to unlicensed sites. For poker players, the consequences show up in rake, promotions and, eventually, in which sites are willing to serve which markets.
The UK: Remote Gaming Duty Doubles
The most dramatic move came in Britain. From 1 April 2026, Remote Gaming Duty — applied to operator profits from remote gaming supplied to UK customers — increased from 21% to 40%. A further change is queued for the betting side, with a new 25% rate for remote betting taking effect on 1 April 2027. On top of that, Gambling Commission licence fees increase 25% from 1 October 2026.
A near-doubling of duty on gaming profits is not a marginal adjustment. It is a structural change to the economics of operating in the UK market, and operators have a limited menu of responses: raise rake and reduce payout percentages, cut promotional spend, reduce marketing, or exit segments that no longer clear their cost of capital.
Poker sits awkwardly in this framework because poker rake is not the same product as casino gross gaming revenue, and margins in poker are thinner to begin with. A rake increase in poker is more visible to players than a payout adjustment in slots, and poker players are more price-sensitive and more mobile than casino customers. The likely outcome is not that UK poker disappears but that promotional generosity contracts and that some operators de-prioritise poker relative to higher-margin verticals.
UK players evaluating their options should see our UK poker sites page for current licensed operators, and the rakeback guide for how to assess what you are actually paying at each site.
The Netherlands: Raising Rates Into Falling Revenue
The Dutch case is the clearest cautionary tale. Gambling tax rose to 37.8% on 1 January 2026, following an increase to 34.2% in 2025. On the same date, the Remote Gambling Policy Rules 2026 took effect, requiring licence applicants to submit an exit plan explaining how they would wind down their gambling offer if their licence ended, plus a risk analysis under Dutch anti-money laundering legislation.
The problem is what happened after the 2025 increase. The Dutch regulator's own research confirmed that estimated gambling tax revenue for 2025 ended up lower than in 2024, not higher. Raising the rate reduced the take.
The mechanism is not mysterious. When licensed operators face higher costs, they reduce marketing, tighten bonuses and offer worse pricing. Players who notice the deterioration have an alternative — unlicensed sites that pay no Dutch tax at all — and a meaningful share of them use it. The tax base shrinks faster than the rate rises.
Germany: A Model That Is Not Working
Germany offers the longest-running evidence of the same dynamic. The country applies a 5.3% stake tax on sports betting, virtual slots and online poker, alongside a €1,000 monthly cross-operator deposit limit.
A stake tax is fundamentally different from a profit tax. Taxing turnover rather than gross gaming revenue means the effective rate on operator margin can be enormous — in high-volume, low-margin products, a 5.3% turnover levy can exceed the entire gross margin available. For online poker specifically, where rake is a small percentage of money wagered, a stake-based tax is structurally punishing.
The results speak for themselves. Up to 80% of online slot play in Germany takes place with unlicensed operators. German online casino tax revenue declined 16% in 2024, and since 2022 there has been a 47% drop. The €1,000 deposit cap, intended as a consumer protection measure, has the side effect of pushing higher-spending players toward sites that do not enforce it.
Germany's experience is the strongest available argument that channelisation — the share of play occurring with licensed operators — is the metric that actually determines tax revenue, and that rate increases which damage channelisation are self-defeating.
Why This Matters Beyond Europe
The European pattern is being watched closely in North America. Several US states have raised or considered raising online gaming tax rates, and the argument that higher rates simply capture more revenue from an inelastic market is losing credibility as the European data accumulates.
The US context differs in one important respect: the offshore alternative is more established and more accessible for American players than it is for most Europeans, which means the channelisation risk from aggressive taxation is arguably higher, not lower. States debating online poker legalisation — and the framework rates attached to it — are effectively choosing between a smaller share of a large regulated market and a larger share of a small one.
Our US poker sites page covers the current state-by-state landscape, and safe poker sites explains how to evaluate licensing and player fund protection wherever you play.
What This Means for Players
Expect worse promotions before you see worse rake. Operators cut discretionary spend first. Reload bonuses, rakeback tiers and leaderboard prizes are the earliest casualties of a tax increase; headline rake changes come later because they are more visible.
Compare effective cost, not headline rake. A site with lower nominal rake and no rakeback can be more expensive than a site with higher rake and a strong loyalty program. Our what is rakeback explainer covers how to compute what you actually pay per hour.
Licensing still matters more than pricing. Unlicensed operators can offer better terms precisely because they carry none of the compliance or tax burden. That advantage is real, and so is the corresponding lack of recourse if something goes wrong. The safe poker sites guide covers how to assess an operator's licensing, banking and dispute-resolution track record before depositing.
Market exits are a genuine risk. When duty rises sharply, some operators withdraw from a jurisdiction entirely. Players in affected markets should avoid holding large balances at a single site and should understand each operator's withdrawal process. See our payments guide for practical considerations.
The Direction of Travel
Fiscal pressure on European iGaming is unlikely to ease. Governments facing budget deficits view gambling as a politically easy target, and the sector's ability to argue for lower rates is limited by its own reputational position. What may change is the design of the taxes — a shift from turnover-based to margin-based models would materially improve the outlook for poker specifically, since poker's rake-to-turnover ratio is the lowest of any regulated product.
For now, the trajectory is higher costs, thinner promotions, and continued pressure on the licensed operators that European regulators say they want players to use.