Why enforcement is the real problem
Anyone enforcing a recovery claim against a foreign online casino operator has two legal hurdles to clear, not one. The first is the action itself. Under the settled OGH line, it is regularly viable as long as the operator does not hold an Austrian licence and its offer was targeted at the Austrian market. The second hurdle is enforcement of the judgment obtained.
In practice, enforcement often turns out to be the harder part. The operating companies are seated in Malta, Gibraltar, Curacao or other licence jurisdictions. They often hold limited balance sheet substance relative to the size of the claims. They transfer licences, incorporate new subsidiaries and shift operational activity. Within the EU, enforcement under the Brussels Ia regime is possible in principle, in third countries it is considerably more burdensome. If the casino stonewalls, the player may hold a judgment without ever seeing the money.
This is exactly where managing director liability gains significance. It provides the player with an additional source of assets. It shifts part of the enforcement risk onto natural persons who are reachable at the seat of the company or elsewhere. It increases the pressure on casino management to settle while the proceedings are still pending.
What has happened legally
The discussion around personal liability of managing directors of online casino providers operating illegally in Austria has seen several waves over recent years. In 2026, Austrian media, including Der Standard, reported on current developments in this strand.
The arguments for personal liability are not entirely new, but they are gaining sharper contours through recent case law. Several anchor points are discussed in Austrian doctrine and practice.
Tort liability for breach of a protective statute. The Austrian Gambling Act serves, among other purposes, the protection of players. A managing director of a casino company who knowingly and willingly accepts the absence of an Austrian licence and continues to maintain the offer targeted at Austria can become personally liable under the rules on breach of a protective statute. The player has a direct claim against the natural person, based on § 1311 ABGB.
Liability for immoral business conduct. A second strand relies on the immorality of the business management itself. Anyone running a business model that is void in its principal target market and that systematically appropriates player losses may commit an immoral injury within the meaning of § 1295 (2) ABGB.
Insolvency-related liability and creditor protection. Where the casino operating company is visibly no longer able to satisfy the expected recovery claims, the classic rules on creditor protection come into play. Managing directors who in that situation continue to accept deposits and roll out bonus programmes expose themselves to liability risks that exceed normal operational business.
European element. The ECJ decision Wunner C-77/24 strengthens injured consumers, because a claim against the management of illegal online casinos is available under the law and at the forum of the country where the injured player has their residence.
What changes in practice
For affected players, the strengthening of managing director liability does not, by itself, simplify the action against the casino. That action continues to follow the OGH line and remains regularly viable. Managing director liability is added strategically.
Extended litigation options. The action may be directed against the casino company and the personally acting managing directors simultaneously. Both grounds can be raised side by side. This does not increase the amount in dispute, but it expands the pool of assets available for enforcement.
Increased settlement pressure. Managing directors who are personally drawn into the proceedings have a different interest in a swift settlement than the company itself. Personal liability affects private assets, professional reputation and potential further directorships. That shifts the negotiation dynamic.
Better enforcement prospects. Natural persons leave licence jurisdictions less often than companies do. They have residences, accounts, real estate and in many cases vehicle or securities holdings in EU member states. Enforcement against natural assets is well developed within the EU judicial area. In third countries it may be more difficult, but is not excluded.
No self-runner. Managing director liability is not an automatic consequence of casino nullity. It requires its own factual narrative on the subjective element, that is to say knowledge of the managing directors of the Austrian licence situation and the management decision to maintain the offer in the direction of Austria nonetheless. The evidence is regularly more labour-intensive than in the pure casino action.
When the strand is worthwhile
The question of whether managing directors should be sued alongside the casino operator in a concrete case is a strategy decision. It depends on several factors.
Likely enforcement situation against the casino. Where the operating company is visibly weak in substance or where the seat is in a country whose enforcement recognition in Austria is difficult, managing director liability tends to become more important.
Reachability of the natural persons. Managing directors with an EU residence, EU accounts and demonstrable assets are realistic targets. Managing directors in distant third countries without identifiable assets in the EU do not materially reduce enforcement risk.
Amount in dispute. With small to medium amounts in dispute, extension to managing directors is not always economically sensible. With very large amounts, or in group actions bundling many individual cases, this calculation changes.
Negotiation dynamic. Where the opposing side signals that a settlement will only be reached through the company and not the personal level, including the managing directors in the pleading can increase willingness to negotiate.
Frequently asked questions
Can a player pursue the managing director without first suing the company? In principle yes. The grounds for liability are independent of each other. In practice, parallel pursuit is often advisable, or pursuit of the natural person where the company is not reachable.
What evidence is typical in managing director liability cases? Commercial register extracts, general terms and conditions, marketing materials with an Austrian reference, licence files and, where available in proceedings, internal compliance documents. The taking of evidence is regularly more elaborate than in the pure casino action.
Does managing director liability prescribe differently from the claim against the company? Yes, the two must be kept apart. The unjust enrichment claim against the casino company itself falls under the 30-year limitation period of § 1478 of the Austrian Civil Code (ABGB). The tort liability of the managing director discussed here is a damages claim subject to the shorter three-year period from knowledge of damage and tortfeasor under § 1489 ABGB. Limitation must be examined carefully on a case-by-case basis, because knowledge of the concrete managing director typically arises later than knowledge of the casino damage.
Does the licence jurisdiction of the managing director matter? For the cause of action in Austria, not in principle. For enforcement, very much so. Managing directors with an EU residence are more realistic targets than those resident in distant third countries.