Across Europe, gamblers using unlicensed operators often attempt to recover their losses through legal action. Such cases have emerged in Germany, Austria, and the Netherlands, where online gambling is tightly regulated.
In a recent landmark ruling, a high court in Austria partially sided with an unlicensed gambling operator seeking to reclaim winnings paid out to a player. Despite the operator not holding a license in Austria, the Supreme Court ruled that they could recover a portion of the winnings from the player.
Case details: unlicensed operator seeks to reclaim winnings
The case involved an Austrian gambler who used the services of a Malta-based online gambling operator that lacked a license to operate in Austria. Between May and July 2020, the player deposited nearly €22,000 ($24,000) and won approximately €29,100 ($31,800).
Unexpectedly, the gambling operator filed a claim to recover €7,152 ($7,800) in winnings paid to the player. The Supreme Court examined the case and concluded that the contracts between the player and the operator were “absolutely void.” The player argued that the contract was invalid because the operator did not hold a license in Austria.
However, the court stated, “Since the prohibition provisions in question are not protective provisions that exist exclusively for the benefit of one contractual partner, not only this party, but every contractual partner can invoke the illegality and nullity of the contract.” This means that both players and gambling operators can challenge the validity of a contract if it is deemed illegal.
Court orders partial return of winnings
In previous similar cases, courts have ordered gambling operators to repay losses to players. However, in this instance, the Supreme Court acknowledged Austria’s laws and gambling monopoly, which aim to prevent players from engaging with unlicensed operators. The court noted that allowing players to keep winnings while recovering losses could encourage the use of illegal operators and create a potentially addictive environment.
“The defendant’s appeal, which was answered by the plaintiff and seeks to reinstate the judgment of the court of first instance, is admissible for the reason given by the appeal court. However, it is not justified,” the Supreme Court’s decision stated.
While the court upheld the lower court’s ruling, it did not fully side with either the defendant (the player) or the plaintiff (the operator). Instead, it ordered the player to return a portion of the winnings. The court required the player to pay €626.60 ($684) to cover the cost of the appeal proceedings. The gambler was given 14 days to make the payment.
