The case at a glance
On 11 August 2022, several Austrian media outlets reported in parallel on a judgment of a Vienna regional court. An Austrian player who had deposited and lost money over several years on the Pokerstars platform brought an action against the Maltese operator for repayment of the gambling losses. The case was litigated by my firm. The court awarded the player around 1.6 million euros.
The case was reported in Der Standard, Vienna.at, the Tiroler Tageszeitung and Salzburg24. The headlines were succinct and factual. The common tenor: the operator did not hold an Austrian gambling licence, the contracts with the player were void, the stakes had to be returned.
Why the judgment is relevant beyond the individual case
The legal reasoning of the Vienna court follows the line that the Austrian Supreme Court has shaped in several decisions and developed systematically in OGH 6 Ob 31/24p. The Pokerstars judgment is therefore not the start of a new phase of case law. It is a prominent application of the established line to a particularly visible set of facts.
Three reasons make the case relevant for other players nonetheless.
The magnitude. With around 1.6 million euros, the amount awarded was sufficient to attract public attention. Gambling losses of this size are not a mass phenomenon, but they do occur in the casino segment. The judgment shows that even very high claim amounts can be enforced before Austrian courts, provided the legal anchors hold.
The defence strategy of the operator. The casino initially refused payment, citing its Maltese licence and the choice of Maltese law in its general terms and conditions. The court set this aside and applied Austrian consumer law. This pattern recurs in many other casino proceedings.
The enforcement question. The operator resisted enforcement of the judgment. This reaction is not unusual in the online casino segment. Enforceability of an Austrian judgment within the EU, including Malta, is however available in principle under the Brussels Ia regime. Enforcement is pursued case by case using the procedural tools provided there.
Does the judgment apply to my case?
This question is asked by every player who has suffered similar losses, and understandably so. A blanket answer is not possible. Every case is individual. The relevant checkpoints, however, are the same in most casino proceedings.
Operator status. Does the operator hold an Austrian licence under the Gambling Act? For the major foreign platforms the answer is almost always no. This is a necessary precondition for the line of argument from the Pokerstars judgment.
Targeting of the Austrian market. Did the operator deliver its services specifically to Austria, for example through a German-language interface, Austrian payment methods, advertising in Austrian media? Targeting establishes the Austrian consumer forum and the application of Austrian consumer law.
Documentation of losses. Are casino statements, bank documents or credit card statements available from which the stakes and payouts can be traced over the entire period? Without that record, the action becomes difficult. With complete documentation it is regularly viable.
Limitation. Is the start of gambling activity still within a usable limitation period? Recovery claims against online casinos without an Austrian concession are unjust enrichment claims and fall under the general 30-year limitation period of § 1478 of the Austrian Civil Code (ABGB). Losses incurred within the last 30 years are therefore in principle actionable.
Economic substance. Does the operator hold assets within the EU that are amenable to enforcement? For major market participants this is regularly the case. With smaller platforms or pure crypto casinos this can be more difficult and should be examined before filing the action.