Sorting the terminology
There is no true class action in Austria in the sense of the US class action procedure. What is referred to in practice and in press coverage as “group action” or “collective action” is regularly bundled legal representation. Several players retain the same law firm, each with their own claim. The firm runs the proceedings in parallel and economically, but can steer motions, pleadings and evidence centrally.
An “individual action” is the classical civil procedure action by a single player against the casino operator. It differs from a group action not in legal construction, but in economic and organisational accompaniment.
Hybrid forms also exist. “Assignment actions”, where players assign their claims to a litigation funding company, which then sues in its own name, are established in the Austrian market. Legally, that is no longer an action by the player but an action by the funding company. This construction is related to the model of instant settlement providers, but not identical to it. More in our article on instant settlement offers.
The typical course of a casino recovery case
Whether individual action or group action, proceedings follow a series of steps that are similar in practice.
Step 1, initial consultation and case file
In the first step, the firm reviews the facts on the basis of documents brought by the player. Usual exhibits are casino statements of deposits and withdrawals, bank statements or credit card statements, screenshots from the player account, and correspondence with the casino where available. From these documents the balance, the net loss over the entire period, can be derived.
The firm assesses the principal preconditions at this step. Does the provider hold an Austrian licence? In most cases the answer is no. Is the offer targeted at the Austrian market? With German-language platforms using Austrian payment methods, this is practically always the case. Is the claim still within the limitation period? Here the answer depends on the timing of gambling activity and on knowledge of the legal basis.
Step 2, fees and risk
Before mandate acceptance, the firm must clarify the economic side. Legal fees under the RATG or by lump sum agreement, court fees, expert witness costs, the risk of procedural costs in case of loss. In many casino cases, this risk is either covered by legal expenses insurance or transferred to a litigation funding company in exchange for an outcome-based share. You do not need to search for a suitable funder yourself. On request, Dr. Peschel arranges the funding directly with a funder fitting your case, so that you do not bear any personal cost risk.
In group actions, the economic model is often standardised. Participants pay a participation fee or assign proportional claims to the funding company. In case of success, a predefined share of the recovered amount flows to the player and the rest to firm and funder. The terms vary and must be compared.
Step 3, filing the action and progress of proceedings
The action is filed before the competent Austrian court. For players as consumers, the Austrian consumer forum at their domicile is regularly available. This question has been settled by ECJ and Austrian supreme court case law and is treated in detail in the doctoral thesis on the European consumer forum by Dr. Oliver Peschel.
The defendant casino typically replies with a defence pleading, arguing the jurisdiction of the Austrian court, the applicability of Austrian law and the effectiveness of its own licence. These objections can be well rebutted from the OGH line, but require carefully drafted pleadings.
A preparatory hearing follows, possibly with evidence taking on deposits, gambling behaviour or market targeting of the casino. In many proceedings the casino will offer a settlement at the latest at this stage. Accepting or refusing the offer is a strategy decision by the player, to be taken jointly with the firm.
Step 4, judgment and enforcement
If no settlement is reached, the proceedings move to final judgment. With a favourable judgment, enforcement is the next step. Within the EU it works well under the Brussels Ia regime. Outside the EU, for example with Curacao licensees, it is more burdensome. Managing director liability can become a useful additional lever here, more in our article on managing director liability.
Step 5, payout to the player
In case of success, the amount awarded flows to the player, less the agreed legal fees and, where applicable, the share of the litigation funder. In a pure individual action without third-party funding, the nominal amount less legal fees remains with the player. In litigation funding models, the payout ratio is defined contractually in advance.
When which form fits
Individual action. Individual actions involve a high cost risk and high up-front costs. In casino proceedings in particular, we recommend not incurring further losses but routing the action via a litigation funder, which eliminates the cost risk. The Heute report of 20 June 2025 illustrates a case with a loss of around 500,000 euros recovered through an individual action conducted by our firm.
Group action or bundling. Where losses occurred at several casinos, bundling all proceedings through one firm can be economically sensible. Players who wish to limit individual procedural risk and effort also often find a group action with third-party funding to be a suitable form. The ORF ZIB1 reporting of 2 November 2023 and the ECO Spezial broadcast of the same day documented the increase of such proceedings in Austria.
Third-party assignment models. Those who no longer want to bear their own effort or procedural risk can assign their claim to a specialised company. Economically this resembles the instant settlement model in its construction, with the difference that the payout ratio depends on the specific contract. The claim leaves the player’s hands definitively in this variant. We advise against these models and recommend pure litigation cost funding instead. We are happy to advise on the individual case. More on the assessment in the article on instant settlement offers.
What the reporting on group actions has clarified
Austrian reporting on group actions against online casinos has seen several distinct waves in recent years. As early as 2019, Kurier and ORF reported on an initial larger group action against online casino providers. The Pokerstars complex in 2022 continued that line. The ZIB1 coverage of 2 November 2023 documented the rise of actions filed.
This coverage primarily documents two things. First, that the group action is an established procedural model in the casino area and not an extraordinary construction. Second, that the choice of firm should not be based primarily on marketing presence, but on the specific fee and conditions model and on experience in the casino segment.
Frequently asked questions
How long does a casino case in Austria last? In simple constellations with cooperating opponents a few months, in complex constellations or where the opposing side fights to the end one to two years, sometimes longer.
What does an individual action cost in practice? The answer depends on claim size, file volume and fee model. A blanket statement would not be serious. To minimise the risk, we recommend choosing litigation funding.
What happens if I lose? In Austrian civil procedure, the losing party generally also bears the costs of the opposing side. Without legal expenses insurance or litigation funding this risk can be substantial. Honest risk assessment is part of every initial consultation.
Can I leave a group action if I change my mind? That depends on the specific contract. In pure bundling mandates, mandate termination is possible as with any legal representation. In assignment models, withdrawal after assignment is generally not easily possible.
Does your firm offer group actions? We assess each case individually. Depending on facts, loss amount and risk profile, we propose a suitable approach. You can obtain a first assessment via the contact form.