Share This Article
Since early 2020, Austria has found itself at the center of extensive mass litigation in the gambling sector.
Thousands of claims have been filed across the country, targeting foreign-based gambling operators for offering online games without a domestic license and there is currently no sign of abatement. Below is an article on the topic from my Austrian gambling law colleagues Nicole Daniel, Andreas Winkler and Raikhan Pezzato.
The litigation has since evolved into a complex and dynamic legal ecosystem involving a broad range of stakeholders – including players and their legal representatives, gambling operators and their counsels, the judiciary, and an increasingly assertive litigation funding industry.
What sets this litigation trend apart is not just its volume, but the diversity of legal questions it has brought to the surface.
Legal background: Challenging the monopoly
Austria currently maintains a de-facto statutory monopoly on lotteries, electronic lotteries (including iGaming), and video lottery terminals (or VLTs), with an exclusive license awarded to Österreichische Lotterien GmbH until September 30, 2027.
The surge in litigation in 2020 was initially triggered by a decision of the Austrian Supreme Court. Since then, Austrian claimants have been seeking reimbursement of gambling losses incurred in online games offered by foreign operators. Their claims are typically based on gambling contracts being null and void under the Austrian Gambling Act (Glücksspielgesetz – GSpG), as the operators do not hold an Austrian license. On this basis, players pursue claims for restitution against foreign operators on the grounds of unjust enrichment before local courts across Austria, reflecting the rule that consumer jurisdiction for unjust enrichment claims is generally based on the claimant’s residence.
It remains unclear whether Austria’s recently implemented EU collective redress mechanism will be utilised in this context. If so, it could centralise the adjudication of these matters and potentially reduce the procedural burden currently spread across local courts.
The litigation takes various forms: from conventional civil claims to European orders for payment. Some are submitting requests under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) to obtain transaction histories before filing lawsuits.
Gambling operators, on the other hand, argue that their services are lawful under EU law. Specifically, they contend that the Austrian monopoly, its supervision and, in particular, its operational implementation by the monopolist violates the freedom to provide services enshrined in Article 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). While EU law allows Member States to restrict gambling in the public interest, such restrictions must be consistent, proportionate, and genuinely aimed at achieving these objectives. The case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) makes it clear that gambling monopolies may only be upheld if they are coherent in design and implementation. The necessity of continuous assessment is particularly supported by the fact that, according to reports, the Österreichische Lotterien GmbH has risen to become one of the top ten companies in Austria in terms of advertising expenditure in recent years. And at some point, the question arises as to whether this is still compatible with European legal requirements for restricting the freedom to provide services. Bearing in mind that the freedom to provide services is one of the most important cornerstones of the European Union.
Notably, the Austrian government’s programme for 2025-2029 reinforces the perception that the monopoly serves predominantly fiscal goals. It proposes a substantial increase in gambling tax from 40% to 45% as of July 1, 2025 – a move that undermines the argument that the regime exists primarily to protect players. According to established CJEU jurisprudence, a restriction driven by revenue-generation motives cannot be justified under Article 56 TFEU.
In practice, courts of first instance have shown little willingness to re-evaluate the monopoly on a case-by-case basis, even though CJEU jurisprudence clearly requires such an assessment. A recent exception has emerged at a regional court where a handful of judges have expressed openness to a more thorough legal review for a certain game period, including the potential appointment of experts.
In response, some claimant representatives have adopted procedural tactics to avoid judicial scrutiny. Aware that a substantive hearing or expert appointment might follow, they withdraw claims before operators’ counsel can submit a response. Often, the same claims are refiled shortly thereafter in the hope that the matter will be assigned to a different judge. This approach, facilitated by the support of litigation funders, raises legitimate questions as to whether these proceedings are genuinely aimed at advancing consumer protection or are primarily profit-driven.
Litigation funders, for their part, continue to benefit from the current environment, which offers fertile ground for profit-oriented claims with relatively predictable procedural outcomes. In order to counteract such behaviour, strategies must be optimized across multiple levels and jurisdictions.
Strategic gambling litigation management in Austria
Given the scale and complexity of ongoing proceedings, a strategic and adaptive litigation approach is essential. Cases must be carefully assessed in light of jurisdictional nuances, the presiding court’s stance, and the overall procedural strategy.
In situations where legal uncertainty or risk of an unfavourable precedent exists, an early settlement may be a prudent course of action to preserve procedural flexibility and contain costs. At the same time, efforts should be made to develop legal arguments that challenge the prevailing interpretation of the GSpG in light of EU law and evolving CJEU jurisprudence.
Moreover, gambling litigation in Austria does not exist in a vacuum. It frequently intersects with parallel legal issues, including data protection claims, administrative proceedings, international enforcement, consumer protection, unfair competition, tax law, intellectual property matters, et al. A holistic “one-stop” legal service approach may therefore offer considerable advantages, particularly for operators facing multi-dimensional legal exposure.
Conclusion
Litigation in Austria’s gambling sector is set to continue for the foreseeable future. A potential solution lies in transitioning to a multi-license regulatory model. Such a system would enable controlled market access, facilitate enforceable regulation, and promote fair competition. It would also bring Austria’s gambling regime more in line with EU principles and best practices from other Member States.
With the expiry of the current monopoly license looming in 2027, a political decision on the future structure of Austria’s gambling market is expected imminently. In the meantime, the legal battle continues.
If you need legal support or advice on any issues related to gambling litigation in Austria, I will be glad to introduce you to my Austrian gambling law colleagues Nicole Daniel, Andreas Winkler and Raikhan Pezzato. Also, you can have an outline on the Austrian gambling law regime in DLA Piper’s Gambling Laws of the World Guide available HERE and access further gambling law news HERE.