The Ministry of Finance has presented the draft of the largest gambling reform in decades. The online monopoly falls; from October 2027 several operators are to be able to obtain an Austrian licence. The decisive sentence for affected players is in the licensing rules: any operator that offered its services illegally without a concession and now wants to continue legally must first have satisfied all final judgments from player claims and paid outstanding levies in arrears.
What it is about
On 29 June 2026 the Austrian Ministry of Finance sent the ministerial draft of a Gambling Reform Act 2026 into formal review (125/ME of the XXVIII. legislative period). An important caveat upfront: this is a draft, not law in force. Review runs until mid-July, a vote is expected for the autumn, and changes are possible until then.
Nonetheless the draft marks a genuine turning point. Until now, online gambling in Austria could be offered by only a single concession holder, Österreichische Lotterien GmbH with the brand win2day. Every other online platform, whether from Malta, Curacao or elsewhere, holds no Austrian concession and thereby offers prohibited gambling. The draft opens this market: in future an unlimited number of online concessions is to be available (Section 14(1) of the Gambling Act in the draft version). The first concessions are to be granted no earlier than 1 October 2027.
The decisive point: a clean record as the entry ticket
For anyone who has lost money at an online casino, the most important sentence is not in the headline but in the licensing rules. Many of the international operators that have so far been active without an Austrian concession will push into the opened market. They are to be allowed to take part, but only on a condition that carries real weight.
Such an operator is in principle to be regarded as unreliable in regulatory terms (Section 14(2) no. 4) and is thereby excluded from a concession. Section 14(2a) of the draft opens a way back only under strict conditions. Two of them are central for affected players. First, the operator must have paid in arrears all gambling levies that have so far fallen due and are not yet time-barred (Section 14(2a) no. 1). Second, and this is the actual lever, under Section 14(2a) no. 2 all final judgments of domestic civil courts ordering payment must be satisfied that players obtained against the operator in the past. Newly issued judgments must be paid within the applicable period before a concession is granted.
The explanatory notes say it with remarkable openness: players who have suffered losses, and who in the past were often able to enforce their recovery claims only with considerable effort, are to be helped quickly and effectively. Only those operators that implement enforceable judgments of Austrian courts will in future gain access to the regulated concession system.
The draft anticipates the usual evasive manoeuvres. The obligation applies not only to the company that was ordered to pay, but to the entire group up to the beneficial owner (Section 14(2b) no. 1). Anyone who merely tweaks the tainted brand in order to escape the past will not get through with it (Section 14(2b) no. 2). A mere partial payment within a foreign insolvency or restructuring procedure expressly does not count as satisfaction (Section 14(2b) no. 8). And the applicant must confirm all of this in a sworn statement, the accuracy of which is subject to criminal penalty.
Finally, a new enforcement proviso aims directly at the constellation that affected players know from practice: enforcement of final Austrian judgments must be guaranteed in the operator’s state of seat (Section 14(3)). With this the legislator addresses precisely the enforcement blockades behind which above all Maltese operators have recently retreated.
What changes about recovery, and what does not
The reform changes nothing about the legal basis for the recovery of gambling losses. It operates exclusively for the future. For losses already suffered, the legal position in force at the time of play remains decisive, under which an operator without an Austrian concession carried out prohibited gambling.
This basis is settled: gambling contracts with an unlicensed operator are void, the stakes were paid without a legal ground and are to be reclaimed under unjust-enrichment law, reduced by winnings paid out. The Supreme Court confirms this line in settled case law, most recently in decision 6 Ob 31/24p. The basis is also secured under Union law: by judgment of 16 April 2026 in case C-440/23 the European Court of Justice made clear that national online gambling prohibitions are compatible with Union law and that the recovery of losses is permissible. Practical enforcement is becoming easier at the same time: in the Vienna case C-198/24 the Court, on 21 May 2026, facilitated the preliminary attachment of accounts against a Malta operator.
The switch from a monopoly to a concession system precisely does not mean retroactive legalisation. Anyone who offered without the required concession acted illegally, and a future licensing model changes nothing about that. The draft itself expressly treats the past unlicensed offering as prohibited gambling and as an unlawful encroachment on the gambling monopoly. It even requires repentant operators to cease their illegal offering from 1 January 2027 (a cooling-off period) before they may even apply.
The operators’ objection does not hold
Some operators will argue that, with the end of the monopoly, the legislator itself concedes that the monopoly was never necessary and was therefore contrary to Union law, so that their offering was not prohibited at all and no recovery is warranted.
This objection does not hold. Recovery does not hinge on the monopoly, but on the absence of a concession. Offering without a concession was illegal and remains illegal, under the monopoly as under the future licensing system. The legislator is merely changing the regulatory model, not the objective, and under the case law of the European Court of Justice it is allowed to do so. The Supreme Court has rejected the objection of incompatibility with Union law in settled case law after an overall assessment, and the European Court of Justice has most recently not taken issue with national online gambling prohibitions. That the reform additionally tightens enforcement against illegal operators, with network blocking and a ban on processing payments to illegal operators, supports this line rather than weakening it.
What this means for affected players
Anyone who in recent years suffered losses at an online casino without an Austrian concession can reclaim them unchanged. Whether recovery is enforceable in the concrete case depends, however, on the circumstances of the individual case and requires a separate assessment; the reform does not create an automatic claim. What changes is the negotiating position. Until now a judgment against a Malta operator was often only a title that had to be laboriously enforced abroad. In future a satisfied claim becomes the condition for the operator being allowed back into the lucrative Austrian market at all. Anyone who wants a concession can no longer sit out open player judgments.
That is why it is worthwhile right now to have a claim assessed and documented rather than to let it lie. Anyone who has put their starting position in order sits at the longer end of the lever in this phase. In most cases there is no time pressure from limitation; the unjust-enrichment claim is in principle subject to a thirty-year limitation period, but the limitation situation must be assessed in the individual case.
Frequently asked questions
Is the online gambling monopoly really falling under the reform?
Under the Ministry of Finance’s draft, yes. An unlimited number of online concessions is envisaged, the first to be granted no earlier than October 2027. The draft, however, has not yet been adopted. Until the vote, expected in the autumn, changes are possible.
What does the condition that operators must satisfy player judgments mean?
The draft provides that an operator that was so far active illegally without a concession obtains an Austrian online concession only if it has first satisfied all final judgments from player claims and paid the outstanding gambling levies in arrears (Section 14(2a) of the draft). Existing recovery judgments can thereby no longer be ignored. This strengthens the position of players with open claims.
Does the reform change anything about the recovery of my losses?
No. The legal basis is the nullity of contracts with unlicensed operators. The reform changes nothing about that; it operates only for the future and does not legalise past illegal offerings. Recoverable is the net loss, that is the stakes minus winnings paid out. Pending proceedings continue unchanged.
Do I have to act quickly now?
The limitation period for recovery is in principle thirty years, so in most cases there is no time pressure from limitation. The practical advantage lies in the window before concessions are awarded: operators that want back into the Austrian market now have a tangible interest in settling open claims. Anyone who has had their claim assessed and documented in this phase is better positioned.
What is required for an initial assessment?
Only the operator concerned and the approximate total loss. Documents do not have to be obtained, nor requested from the casino; the firm handles that entirely. The initial assessment is free of charge and possible via the contact form; the reply comes directly from us, from attorney Dr. Oliver Peschel. We are pioneers in casino recovery, with experience since 2019 and thousands of successfully concluded cases.