PokerStars is the best-known online poker brand in the world and one of the most-searched gambling brands in Austria. Many of those affected consider poker pure skill and therefore not recoverable. That is a mistake: online poker for money is gambling under Austrian law, the contract with a non-concessioned operator is void, and the losses are recoverable under unjust enrichment. A practitioner’s perspective.
Why PokerStars is a case of its own
Hardly any brand stands for online poker as much as PokerStars. The platform is historically the largest and best-known of its kind and is intensely present in Austria. According to our own search volume data, around 31,640 casino and brand searches per month come from Austria for this environment, the second highest value after Mr Green in the entire market we analysed. The European platform is operated by a Maltese company of the Flutter Entertainment group, which is among the large listed online gambling groups.
The precise formal data, that is the specific operating company with register number, the registered office and the licence, are on the provider page PokerStars in detail. For this article the decisive point is enough: the operating company has no concession under the Austrian Gambling Act. Its offer to players in Austria is therefore prohibited gambling, with the civil law consequences that case law attaches to it.
The actual reason PokerStars deserves its own article does not lie in the group or its reach. It lies in a persistent misconception held by many of those affected: that poker is, after all, a game of skill and therefore not gambling at all. This question is central to recovery and is answered first.
Is online poker gambling at all?
Anyone who plays poker feels the influence of their own skill. Position, bet size, reading the opponents, all of that contributes over the long run. It has no bearing on the legal classification, however. The Austrian Gambling Act expressly names poker as gambling (Section 1(2) Gambling Act). What matters is not whether skill plays a role, but that the outcome depends predominantly on chance, and it is precisely for this reason that the Act assigns poker for money to gambling.
Online poker for money is therefore gambling within the meaning of the Gambling Act, and case law treats it accordingly in a consistent line. The individual hand is decided by chance; skill only shifts the probabilities. This is decisive for recovery: poker losses with a non-concessioned operator are treated in civil law exactly like losses on slot machines or in the online casino. The widespread assumption that poker falls outside recovery because of its skill component is therefore incorrect.
The legal position: nullity and recovery
The civil law assessment of unlicensed gambling contracts is firmly established in the supreme court case law. Gambling contracts of a non-concessioned operator with players in Austria are void. The stakes were paid without legal ground and are to be reclaimed under the rules on unjust enrichment (Sections 1431 ff Austrian Civil Code), reduced by 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 Austrian Civil Code; losses dating back further are therefore in principle still enforceable, though a case-by-case review remains necessary. How this period runs in detail is covered by the article on the limitation of casino losses.
Under EU law the basis has recently been clearly secured. By judgment of 16 April 2026 in case C-440/23, the CJEU clarified that national online gambling bans are compatible with EU law, and expressly recognised players’ recovery claims as admissible. By judgment of 15 January 2026 in case C-77/24 (Wunner), which we, the firm of Dr. Oliver Peschel, conducted and won, the Court also held that the law of the state of residence applies. The choice of foreign law customary in terms and conditions is irrelevant in a consumer relationship. Proceedings are brought under the Brussels Ia Regulation at the consumer’s home court in Austria. An overview of these developments from Luxembourg is provided by the article Three signals from Luxembourg.
The multi-million judgment of 2022 and what applies today
PokerStars is no new territory for the Austrian courts. As early as 2022, an Austrian player won around 1.6 million euros against the Maltese operator, a case conducted by my firm. The reasoning and the significance of this case beyond the individual matter are described in detail in the article on the PokerStars multi-million judgment 2022 and are not repeated here.
What matters is the finding for today. The 2022 judgment was not an exception but an early confirmation of the line the Austrian Supreme Court has carried in settled case law ever since. The legal starting position has not deteriorated since then, on the contrary. The CJEU decisions of 2026 have additionally secured the recovery claims. For those affected this means: whether a loss arose in 2018, 2022 or 2025 changes nothing about the fundamental recoverability. The historical anchor is there, and the legal development continues in the same direction.
Those who circumvented access technically can also recover
In poker cases the question regularly arises whether technical access issues harm the claim. In our view they do not.
What is decisive for recovery is the player’s habitual residence in Austria and the targeting of the offer at the Austrian market. The German-language interface, euro and Austrian payment channels and the advertising all speak for this. Some of those affected play via a VPN connection, for instance. The player’s use of a VPN changes nothing, in our assessment, about the nullity of the unlicensed gaming contract and about recoverability under unjust enrichment. What remains decisive is that the losses arose with an operator without an Austrian concession.
Enforcement against a Malta operator
The practical challenge with operators in this group regularly lies not in the determination of the claim but in enforcement. Enforcement against a Maltese company runs in principle under the Brussels Ia Regulation. Listed groups such as the parent group behind PokerStars have tangible assets in the EU area and are regularly enforceable.
In 2023, with the regulation known as “Bill 55”, Malta attempted to make the enforcement of foreign casino judgments on the island harder. This blockade is now being dismantled. By judgment of 21 May 2026 in case C-198/24, the CJEU enabled preliminary account preservation under Regulation (EU) No 655/2014. And in case C-683/24, the Advocate General at the CJEU took the view in the opinion of 23 April 2026 that Bill 55 is incompatible with the Brussels Ia Regulation. On balance the negotiating position is shifting. The instruments by which titled claims were previously kept at a distance are being dismantled step by step.
Realistically it remains the case: proceedings against operators in this group end in part in settlements, the amount of which is negotiable in the individual case and regularly lies below the full claim sum. The economic enforceability is to be assessed concretely before an action is filed.
Frequently asked questions
Is poker not skill and therefore not gambling?
Skill plays a role in poker, that is undisputed. What is decisive in law, however, is that the outcome depends predominantly on chance. The Gambling Act expressly names poker as gambling (Section 1(2) Gambling Act), and case law treats online poker for money accordingly. Poker losses are therefore treated in civil law like other gambling losses and are recoverable from the online casino.
Can I still reclaim poker losses from many years ago?
The unjust enrichment claim only becomes time-barred under Section 1478 Austrian Civil Code after 30 years. Older losses are therefore in principle covered. The limitation situation must be examined in the individual case; we offer a non-binding and free initial assessment.
Does it matter that I played via a VPN?
In our view, no. What is decisive is the habitual residence in Austria and the targeting of the offer at the Austrian market. The player’s use of a VPN does not legalise the unlicensed offer and does not exclude the recovery claim.
Does PokerStars actually pay after a judgment?
Operators based in Malta have in the past relied on Maltese enforcement hurdles, namely on “Bill 55”. These hurdles are currently being dismantled. The CJEU enabled preliminary account preservation under Regulation (EU) No 655/2014 in C-198/24, and the Advocate General holds Bill 55 to be contrary to EU law in C-683/24. PokerStars currently relies on “Bill 55”, but we assume this defence strategy will not hold in the long run.
What do I need for an initial assessment?
Only the operator concerned and the approximate total loss. You do not have to obtain documents or request them from PokerStars; the firm handles that entirely. The initial assessment is free of charge.
What you can do now
For the free initial assessment, the operator concerned and the approximate total loss are enough. You do not have to obtain documents or request them from PokerStars; the firm handles that entirely. The answer comes within a few working days directly from us, the law firm of Dr. Oliver Peschel. We are pioneers in casino recovery with experience since 2019 and thousands of cases successfully concluded. Send an enquiry or first read the recovery process in detail.