Mr Green is the most-searched online casino brand in Austria. The operating company never held a concession under the Austrian Gambling Act. Losses are therefore recoverable under the settled case law of the Austrian Supreme Court on unjust enrichment, and enforcement is currently becoming considerably easier.
Why Mr Green is a special case
Hardly any gambling brand is as well known in Austria as Mr Green. The operator was advertised intensively on the Austrian market for years, and that advertising still resonates: according to current Google search volume data, the brand is searched around 140,000 times per month in Austria, more than any other online casino brand and more than the next four largest combined.
The legal starting position is unaffected by this and unambiguous: the operating company did not and does not hold a concession under the Austrian Gambling Act. Its offering to players in Austria therefore constitutes prohibited gambling, with the civil-law consequences the case law attaches to that.
Contractual partner, licence, group
The contractual partner of players is Mr Green Limited, based in Sliema, Malta. It holds Maltese licence MGA/CRP/121/2006. A Maltese licence does not replace the Austrian concession; for games of chance directed at players in Austria, only a concession under the Austrian Gambling Act is decisive.
The corporate history is well documented: in 2019 the British betting group William Hill acquired the Swedish Mr Green & Co AB for around 242 million pounds. In 2022, William Hill’s international business passed to 888 Holdings, and since May 2024 the overall group has traded as evoke plc. The Mr Green brand continues unchanged. For the assessment of a claim, what matters is which company was the contractual partner under the terms and conditions in force at the relevant time. Details in the Mr Green operator profile.
The multi-million fine: regulator-documented breaches of the duty of care
A regulatory finding exists on how the operator dealt with recognisably vulnerable customers. By decision of 23 August 2021, the Swedish gambling authority Spelinspektionen issued Mr Green Ltd a warning together with a penalty fee of SEK 31.5 million, roughly 3 million euros. Of that, SEK 30 million related to breaches of the duty of care towards players: according to the authority’s findings, the casino failed to intervene adequately despite clearly recognisable problematic gambling behaviour. The remainder concerned breaches of anti-money-laundering obligations.
On appeal, the fee was reduced in May 2024 to SEK 12 million on proportionality grounds; the Swedish court upheld the substance of the allegations. For the assessment of Austrian cases, the decisive point is not the amount of the sanction but the documented finding of a state regulator: this operator failed to protect recognisably vulnerable players. Comparable fact patterns also appear in Austrian recovery cases.
The legal position: nullity and recovery under unjust enrichment
The civil-law assessment is settled in the case law of the highest court. Gambling contracts between an unlicensed operator and players in Austria are void. Stakes were paid without a legal basis and must be repaid under the rules of unjust enrichment (sections 1431 et seq. of the Austrian Civil Code), less any winnings paid out. The Austrian Supreme Court confirms this line in settled case law, most recently in 6 Ob 31/24p. The claim is subject to the general 30-year limitation period under section 1478 of the Austrian Civil Code; losses dating back many years therefore remain enforceable in principle, subject to a case-by-case review.
The basis is also secured under EU law: by judgment of 16 April 2026 in case C-440/23, the CJEU clarified that national online gambling prohibitions are compatible with EU law and expressly recognised players’ recovery claims as admissible. The choice of foreign law customary in operators’ terms and conditions changes none of this in the consumer relationship; under the Brussels Ia regime, the claim is brought before the court of the player’s domicile in Austria. We have set out the essentials on our recovery page.
Enforcement: from judgment to payment
With Malta-based operators, the practical challenge regularly lies not in the proceedings on the merits but in enforcement. In 2023 Malta attempted, with the rule known as “Bill 55”, to obstruct the enforcement of foreign casino judgments on the island. In Mr Green’s case there is an additional element that is now documented in proceedings before the CJEU: in 2021 the operator deliberately terminated its contracts with an Austrian payment service provider, making access to domestic assets more difficult.
The courts have responded in three steps.
Execution against the Austrian domains. In a case concerning around 33,000 euros of gambling losses, the Austrian Supreme Court approved by decision of 30 April 2024 that execution be levied on the operator’s Austrian internet domains to recover the titled claim. A domestic enforcement object is thus available, one the operator depends on for its Austrian business.
Preliminary account preservation under the EAPO Regulation. By judgment of 21 May 2026 in case C-198/24, the CJEU ruled that creditors holding a final casino judgment can obtain a European Account Preservation Order under the conditions of Regulation (EU) No 655/2014. The underlying case concerned a Viennese consumer who had lost around 63,000 euros at Mr Green between 2017 and 2019 and had obtained a final judgment. The Court clarified that, in assessing the conditions for preservation, both enforcement obstacles in the debtor’s home state, notably Bill 55, and the debtor’s prior conduct must be taken into account, such as the deliberate termination of payment channels to Austria.
EU-law review of Bill 55 itself. In case C-683/24, the Advocate General at the CJEU took the view in his opinion of 23 April 2026 that Bill 55 is incompatible with the Brussels Ia Regulation. If the Court follows this line, the Maltese enforcement blockade loses its basis. We have assessed the recent developments from Luxembourg in our article Three signals from Luxembourg.
Overall, the negotiating position is shifting: the instruments with which titled claims were previously kept at bay are being dismantled step by step. Proceedings against operators in this group sometimes end in settlements; the settlement amount is negotiable in the individual case and regularly below the full amount claimed. The economic enforceability must be assessed concretely before an action is filed.
Typical fact patterns from practice
With a brand of this reach, the fact patterns repeat. Losses have often accumulated over years, not infrequently in the five or six figures and during phases of recognisable gambling addiction. Other affected players only become aware when a withdrawal is delayed or the player account is closed, and then ask about the concession. For the claim it is irrelevant whether the player account still exists or documents are missing: affected players do not need to request or obtain anything themselves; the firm handles the entire preparation of the documentation. To get in touch, the operator concerned and the approximate total loss are sufficient. What matters is that the losses arose with an unlicensed operator. A blanket assessment is not possible; every matter must be reviewed individually.
Frequently asked questions
Is Mr Green legal in Austria?
No. Mr Green Limited holds Maltese licence MGA/CRP/121/2006 but no concession under the Austrian Gambling Act. Gambling contracts with players in Austria are void.
Which decisions is the recovery based on?
On the settled case law of the Austrian Supreme Court on the nullity of unlicensed online gambling contracts, most recently 6 Ob 31/24p, and, under EU law, on CJEU C-440/23 (judgment of 16 April 2026). The basis of the claim is the law of unjust enrichment, sections 1431 et seq. of the Austrian Civil Code.
How far back can losses be recovered?
The unjust-enrichment claim is subject to a 30-year limitation period under section 1478 of the Austrian Civil Code. Older losses are therefore covered in principle; the limitation situation must be assessed in the individual case.
Does Mr Green actually pay after a judgment?
The operator has in the past relied on Maltese enforcement obstacles. Those obstacles are currently being dismantled: the Austrian Supreme Court has approved execution against the Austrian Mr Green domains (decision of 30 April 2024), and the CJEU has enabled preliminary account preservation under Regulation (EU) No 655/2014 in C-198/24. Proceedings sometimes end in settlements, the amount of which is negotiable in the individual case. Mr Green did not pay in the past, relying on Bill 55; whether that now changes remains to be seen.
What is needed for an initial assessment?
Only the operator concerned and the approximate total loss. Documents do not need to be obtained, nor requested from the casino; the firm handles all of that. The initial assessment is free and available via the contact form; the reply comes directly from us, the law firm of Attorney Dr. Oliver Peschel. We are pioneers in casino loss recovery, with experience since 2019 and thousands of successfully concluded cases.