The European Court of Justice has confirmed that national gambling bans are compatible with EU law, allowing players to sue unlicensed providers for refunds. This landmark decision targets operators who offered services in Germany using only foreign licenses, such as those from Malta, prior to the 2021 legalization.
Freedom of Service Limits
The court rejected arguments that national bans violate EU freedom of services, citing the protection of youth and addiction prevention as legitimate grounds for restriction.
Impact on Pending Cases
Thousands of lawsuits currently stalled in German courts are expected to proceed, potentially costing Maltese gambling firms millions in reimbursements.
Sports Betting Exception
While virtual slots and lottery bets are covered by this ruling, a separate ECJ decision regarding the legality of sports betting refunds is still pending.
Consumer Action Steps
Experts advise affected individuals to document all losses and check the GGL whitelist to verify if their provider was operating illegally at the time of play.
The European Court of Justice ruled on April 16, 2026, that players in Germany can reclaim lost stakes from online gambling providers that operated without a valid German license, delivering a significant legal victory for consumers in thousands of pending cases across the country. The ruling, issued under Case C-440/23, arose from a lawsuit brought by a player from the German state of Thuringia who lost money on virtual slot machine games and lottery bets with two Maltese providers between June 2019 and July 2021. The court confirmed that national bans on online gambling are compatible with EU law, rejecting the providers' argument that their Maltese licenses should be recognized across the European Union under the freedom to provide services. The decision does not itself resolve the underlying Maltese court case but carries strong signal value for the many similar proceedings already underway in German courts.
German ban was legal, ECJ confirms — despite Maltese licenses At the heart of the case was a clash between German consumer protection law and the EU principle of the freedom to provide services. The two Maltese companies argued that Germany's prohibition on online gambling violated that freedom, and that a license issued by Malta should be valid throughout the EU single market. The ECJ rejected that reasoning, stating that member states may restrict the freedom to provide services in order to protect consumers and combat black markets. The court pointed to the particular dangers of online gambling, which it described as constantly accessible, played anonymously, without social control, and especially attractive to young people and vulnerable groups. Redirecting gambling into controlled, regulated channels was found to be a legitimate policy goal. The court also dismissed the providers' claim that the lawsuits themselves constituted an abuse of rights, ruling that mere participation in the games was not sufficient grounds for such a finding. Online gambling in Germany was broadly prohibited until the entry into force of the 2021 State Treaty on Gambling, which replaced the general ban and allowed certain forms of online gambling under strict licensing conditions. The period covered by the Thuringia case — June 2019 to July 2021 — falls almost entirely within the era of prohibition. The ECJ ruling does not retroactively change the legal status of gambling during that period but clarifies that consumers who lost money to unlicensed operators during that time retain the right to sue for restitution.
Thousands of cases pending, but out-of-court settlements remain rare The ruling has direct implications for a large number of ongoing proceedings in Germany, where courts have been handling restitution claims from players who used unlicensed platforms during the prohibition period. Alexander Wahl from the European Consumer Centre Germany advised affected players to first compile a complete record of all losses incurred through illegal gambling, then contact the provider directly to request a refund. He cautioned, however, that voluntary reimbursement is uncommon in practice.
„In the vast majority of cases, providers refuse out-of-court reimbursement.” — Alexander Wahl via Berliner Zeitung
Wahl noted that those affected would generally need to engage specialized lawyers to pursue their claims through the courts. Thomas Dünchheim, an expert in gambling law, said the success rate for lawsuits against providers that lacked a German license had been quite high so far.
„In substance, a lot is at stake.” — Thomas Dünchheim via ZEIT ONLINE
Dünchheim added that the sometimes substantial reimbursement sums involved create significant financial risks, particularly for the gambling operators themselves.
Sports betting excluded — separate ECJ ruling still pending The April 16 ruling does not extend to sports betting, which remains subject to a separate legal question currently awaiting clarification from the ECJ. The Federal Court of Justice in Karlsruhe had stayed a similarly situated sports betting proceeding pending the ECJ's guidance, and no date has been set for that answer. Consumers seeking to identify whether a gambling provider is legally authorized in Germany can consult the so-called whitelist maintained by the Gemeinsame Glücksspielbehörde der Länder, which lists all providers holding a valid German permit. The GGL also warns that unlicensed platforms carry additional risks beyond legal exposure: games may be manipulated, prize payments may not be honored, and users' personal data may be misused. Under German criminal law, participation in illegal gambling can itself be punishable by up to six months' imprisonment or a fine. Additional warning signs of an unlicensed operator include the absence of a German permit notice on the website, a missing or incomplete legal notice, no information about the operator's registered office, and the use of foreign or unusual domain extensions such as .cc, .net, .bz, .io, or .casino.
Mentioned People
- Alexander Wahl — Przedstawiciel Europejskiego Centrum Konsumenckiego w Niemczech
- Thomas Dünchheim — Ekspert prawny i adwokat specjalizujący się w prawie hazardowym
Sources: 10 articles
- Illegales Online-Glücksspiel: EuGH-Urteil ermöglicht Rückforderung verlorener Einsätze (Berliner Zeitung)
- EU-Gerichtshof stärkt Position von Glücksspielern (Spiegel Online)
- EuGH stärkt Verbraucher: Illegal gespielt? Wie Sie jetzt Ihre Einsätze zurückfordern (Handelsblatt)
- Urteil zu illegalen Online-Glücksspiel: Spieler können Verluste von Anbietern zurückfordern (N-tv)
- EuGH macht Weg frei für Glücksspielerstattungen (newsORF.at)
- Illegale Online-Angebote: EU-Gerichtshof macht Weg frei für Glücksspiel-Erstattungen (Handelsblatt)
- Online-Spiele: Glücksspiel-Verluste: EuGH ebnet Weg für Rückforderungen (ZEIT ONLINE)
- Verbotene Online-Glücksspiele: Spieler können verlorene Einsätze zurückfordern (stern.de)
- Milliardenmarkt Glücksspiel: Online-Angebote vor Gericht - WELT (DIE WELT)
- Milliardenmarkt Glücksspiel: Online-Angebote vor Gericht (Süddeutsche Zeitung)