Bet. Lose. Sue. Repeat: the rise of Germany’s gambling refund industry
“File a lawsuit against online casinos and demand money back – also from sports betting providers! Request a free initial consultation here.” That’s the bold message greeting visitors on the homepage of a German law firm leading a rising legal movement: helping players reclaim money lost to unlicensed online gambling operators.
An increasing numbers of German players are pursuing legal action to reclaim gambling losses, with recent court rulings and evolving regulatory frameworks supporting their efforts. The practice has become so prevalent that a new legal service industry is forming around it—offering free consultations, consumer litigation funding, and tested legal arguments.
Bet. Lose. Sue. Repeat.
These refund claims are based on the Interstate Treaty on Gambling, which came into force on 1 July 2021. Although the treaty introduced a licensing system for online casinos in Germany, only a limited number of operators have been approved. Most online gambling providers continue to operate without a German licence and are therefore considered illegal under national law.
According to one law firm’s website: “Online casinos that give German-based players access to their platforms must have a valid license. Without one, the casino is classified as an illegal offer. Thus, the contract between the gambling operator and the player is also invalid.”
If the contracts are invalid, explain the firms, this gives rise to a right of restitution—players can demand the return of funds lost through illegal gambling platforms, regardless of whether those platforms operate from Malta, Gibraltar, or elsewhere.
Notably, this right extends up to ten years retroactively and is not invalidated by the new law’s entry into force. In fact, cases concerning losses post-2021 may still qualify, provided the operator did not obtain a German license or failed to comply with regulatory standards. According to one of the firms, 30 to 50 operators continue to offer services in Germany without valid licenses.
Thousands recovered
Consumer-focused law firms have reported considerable success, using past verdicts as persuasive selling points. In recent years, courts across the country have ruled in favour of German players seeking to recover losses from unlicensed operators—ordering companies like Bwin, Unibet, Bet-at-home, and 888 Casino to repay thousands of euros in gambling losses. These decisions, issued by regional courts in Giessen, Traunstein, and Ulm, are now being cited to encourage others to pursue similar claims.
The process itself is designed to be accessible. Players can request an overview of their gambling transactions from the casino under GDPR provisions. If the operator fails to respond within 30 days, they risk additional liability.
Lawyers also provide litigation funding for eligible claims. In such cases, a legal cost financier bears the full cost and risk of litigation in exchange for a portion of the refunded amount if successful.
Austria’s divergent approach: winnings must be returned
While German courts have largely ruled in favour of consumers, Austria’s judiciary has recently taken a contrasting approach.
In 2024, a woman who had sued to recover gambling losses was ordered by the Austrian Supreme Court to return €626.60 in winnings to the operator Bet365. The court held that contracts with illegal online casinos were “null and void in both directions“, thereby annulling both losses and winnings.
The court declared that contracts with unlicensed online casinos were invalid on both sides—meaning neither losses nor winnings could legally be kept. The idea, according to the ruling, was to prevent players from gambling illegally with the safety net of getting losses refunded while keeping any profits.
The Malta-Germany dispute
At the EU level, a key case is now before the European Court of Justice (ECJ), where judges are weighing whether gambling operators licensed in Malta can claim protection under Bill 55—a Maltese law designed to block the enforcement of foreign court rulings, including those from Germany and Austria.
The outcome could affect thousands of claims and reignite debate over the balance between EU principles (such as free movement of services) and national regulatory sovereignty.
As the ECJ ruling looms, and with other EU member states exploring mutual nullification of gambling contracts, the future of such litigation will likely depend on Europe’s ability to harmonise consumer protection with cross-border regulatory autonomy.
Until then, the lawsuits—and the payouts—continue.
