Austrian Court Orders Player to Return Winnings from Unlicensed Gambling

The player was ordered to partially return winnings from unlicensed gambling to a Malta-based operatorImage Source: Shutterstock.com

Gamblers using unlicensed operators across Europe often try to recover their losses. Such cases have been filed in courts in Germany, Austria, as well as the Netherlands, where restrictions related to online gambling are applicable.

In a recent landmark case, a high court in Austria partially sided with the gambling operator which sought to recover winnings paid to a player. Although the operator did not hold a license in the country, a Supreme Court decision confirmed they can reclaim partial winnings from the player.

The peculiar case involved an Austrian gambler who used the services of a Malta-based online gambling operatorwho did not hold a license in the European country. Overall, the client deposited nearly €22,000($24,000) and received close to €29,100($31,800) between May and July 2020.

Unexpectedly, the operator filed a claim asking to recover the €7,152($7,800) in winnings paid to the defendant. The Supreme Court looked into the case and determined that the contracts “are absolutely void.” The defendant, who in this case was the player, argued that the contract with the gambling operator was void because they didn’t hold a license in Austria.

However, the court explained: “Since the prohibition provisions in question are therefore 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 otherwise means that both players and gambling operatorscan challenge that a contract is void.

Gambler Has 14 Days to Partially Return Winnings

In similar past cases, courts issued orders against the gambling operator to repay losses. However, in this case, the Supreme Court acknowledged the existing laws and gambling monopoly in the country which seeks to prevent and discourageplayers from using the services of illegal operators. The court said that if players can keep winnings and recover losses this would encourage the use of unlicensed operatorswhile creating 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,“

reads the Supreme Court decision

The Supreme Court’s decision reaffirmed a previous judgment issued by a lower court. Still, the high court didn’t ngake the side of the defendant or the plaintiff as it ordered a partial reclaim of the winnings. As a result, the defendant was ordered to pay the Malta-based gambling operator the sum of €626.60($684) which is the cost of the appeal proceedings. The gambler was given 14 daysto complete the payment.