Germany player losses cases remain in limbo as ECJ opinion fails to address German law uncertainties
Summary
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) advocate general has published an opinion in case C-440/23 that clarifies some procedural points but stops short of deciding whether Germany’s former State Treaty (which effectively banned internet games of chance) was compatible with EU law. The opinion says national courts may review another member state’s law for compatibility with EU rules and finds that civil claims by players against operators without a local licence are not automatically an abuse of EU law. However, it did not resolve the central question on the compatibility of Germany’s internet ban, leaving many player losses litigations paused until further ECJ consideration – notably the Tipico referral (C-530/24) due to be heard on 24 September.
Key Points
- The advocate general’s opinion does not decide whether Germany’s former internet gambling ban complies with EU law.
- It confirms national courts can assess the compatibility of another member state’s law with EU law.
- The opinion rules that players suing Malta-licensed operators for losses are not engaging in an abuse of EU law.
- The contract at issue in the examined case was treated as void under contract law, a conclusion that may affect similar claims across Germany and Austria.
- Hundreds of regional player-loss cases remain on hold pending ECJ clarity; attention now turns to the Tipico case for a substantive ruling on the German Interstate Treaty (ITG).
Context and relevance
This is a pivotal moment for the iGaming sector in Germany and neighbouring jurisdictions. The advocate general’s procedural-focused opinion gives operators and litigants partial signals but fails to cut through the legal uncertainty that halted numerous reimbursements and loss-claims. If the ECJ later deems Germany’s prior internet ban incompatible with EU law, that could reopen many regional cases and reshape operator risk assessments and compliance strategies. Conversely, a finding of compatibility would entrench national regulatory autonomy for restricting online casino activities.
Why should I read this?
Quick version: this keeps the legal limbo going. If you’re an operator, lawyer or compliance lead dealing with German or Austria-facing players, the outcome affects whether past loss claims stick and how risky serving those markets looks. We’ve read the opinion so you don’t have to—it clears up some procedural stuff but not the meat of the dispute. Watch the Tipico referral in late September for the next big clue.
