Austria’s Supreme Court has ordered a woman to return a portion of her winnings to an unlicensed online gambling operator. According to Austria’s strict gambling regulations, both players and operators can be held accountable for participating in unauthorised gambling activities.

Austria’s gambling monopoly and legal framework

Austria operates a highly regulated and monopolised gambling market. Any other gambling platforms targeting Austrian players are deemed illegal.

In 2021, a Supreme Court ruling declared that contracts with foreign, unlicensed operators were invalid, allowing players to seek refunds for their losses.

This decision led to numerous lawsuits against foreign operators such as 888 (now Evoke) and William Hill, with players seeking to recover money lost while gambling on these platforms.

However, the latest ruling introduces a new dimension to these legal battles, allowing operators to counterclaim against players.

The landmark case: player vs. operator

The recent case involved an Austrian woman who had won €7,162 from an unlicensed Malta-based operator between May and July 2020.

According to the Austrian newspaper Der Standard, the player sought to recover her gambling losses from the online casino Bet365. In response, Bet365 sued to reclaim approximately €7,000 in winnings. While the Donaustadt District Court initially sided with the player, the Supreme Court has overturned this decision, ruling in favor of Bet365 and ordering the player to return €626.60 to cover the operator’s legal fees.

Explaining the court’s verdict

The Supreme Court has ruled that contracts with illegal online casinos are “entirely null and void,” necessitating their cancellation in both directions.

Without this mutual annulment, gamblers could reclaim their losses while retaining their winnings, effectively allowing them to “engage in prohibited gambling with impunity.” The primary goal of this legal prohibition is to minimise the appeal of participating in illegal games of chance. By requiring players to return their winnings, the law effectively reduces this incentive.

The court also noted that the player had ignored betting limits, which contributed to its decision to avoid setting a precedent that might encourage others to contest their losses in similar situations.

The court clarified that its ruling was not intended to protect the interests of the unlicensed operator but rather to uphold the integrity of Austria’s gambling regulations.

“A one-sided option for players to reclaim their losses would make it even less worthwhile for operators to offer prohibited games on the market. However, if the operator can also reclaim the illegally paid-out winnings, it will deter players from gambling with such operators,” explained the judge.

Broader implications

This ruling could have far-reaching implications, particularly in other European countries with similar legal disputes. For instance, Germany is currently dealing with a case that questions whether sports betting operators should refund players for losses that occurred before the country had regulated the market. The case has been referred to the European Court of Justice (ECJ), which could influence similar cases across Europe.

WHAT’S NEXT:?SiGMA East Europe?Summit powered by Soft2Bet, happening in Budapest from 2 – 4 September.