Topic
15 articles on this topic.
Anyone who has lost money at an online casino without an Austrian licence can reclaim those losses under the settled case law of the Supreme Court. What deters many of those affected most is the question of what the process involves. The answer is shorter than most expect: two details are enough to start, the firm handles everything else. This article shows the process from the first message to the lawsuit, step by step.
Austrians know bwin above all as a sports betting brand with Viennese roots, but it also offers an online casino. This dual character is exactly what decides recovery. Casino losses are recoverable under the settled case law of the Austrian Supreme Court on unjust enrichment, because the casino offer holds no concession. Betting losses follow a different, considerably harder logic. A practitioner's perspective from attorney Dr. Oliver Peschel.
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, most recently confirmed in 6 Ob 31/24p. The recent development in enforcement is notable: the Supreme Court has approved execution against the operator's Austrian domains, and by judgment of 21 May 2026 in case C-198/24, a Viennese Mr Green case, the CJEU has enabled preliminary account preservation. A practitioner's perspective.
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.
Roobet is one of the best-known crypto casinos of the streamer scene and is searched thousands of times a month from Austria. For the recovery of losses, playing with cryptocurrencies makes no difference: the operator holds no Austrian concession, the gaming contract is void, and the stakes are recoverable under unjust enrichment.
Stake is the world's largest crypto online casino and also the most-searched brand in this category in Austria. The operating company, based in Curacao, never held a concession under the Austrian Gambling Act. Losses in Bitcoin or other tokens are nonetheless recoverable under the settled case law of the Austrian Supreme Court on unjust enrichment. A practitioner's perspective, with an honest look at enforcement.
The new draft of the Austrian Gambling Act reverses a decades-old line: the monopoly on online gambling is to fall, and from 2029 several operators are to be able to obtain an Austrian licence. The decisive point for anyone who has lost money in online casinos is in the fine print. Operators that previously operated illegally without a concession and now want a licence must first satisfy the judgments from player claims. A practitioner's perspective.
Anyone reclaiming losses from an online casino without an Austrian licence has considerable time on their side thanks to the 30-year limitation period. That period, however, only applies to the claim against the casino itself. If you also pursue the personal liability of the managing directors, a much shorter period applies. This article separates the two deadlines cleanly and explains why the short three-year limitation does not apply to gambling.
Platforms such as Polymarket and Kalshi let users bet on almost anything, from election outcomes to outdoor temperatures on a given day. The operators argue that they run financial instruments, not gambling. From an Austrian perspective this construction is to be approached with caution. For a substantial share of the bets chance prevails over skill, which makes a classification as unlicensed gambling plausible. For players this opens up recovery prospects without exposing them to penalties for participating.
Crypto casinos and platforms with a Curaçao licence are widely represented among the online casinos visible on the Austrian market. Legally, the recovery of losses from these operators is to be conducted along the same line as for Maltese casinos. The real difficulties lie not in the substantive law, but in enforcement. This article explains the specifics, the risks and the conditions under which proceedings can still succeed.
Recent developments in Austrian gambling law open an additional path to enforce player claims: the personal liability of the managing directors of foreign online casino operators. Whenever the operator itself refuses to pay or has no assets within reach, this strand of liability can make the difference between judgment and actual recovery.
Anyone seeking to recover online casino losses faces a practical choice at the outset: an individual action, or joining a law-firm-led group action. The article explains the typical course of both routes, clears up the terminology and shows which factors should decide the right approach in an individual case.
Gambling contracts with online casinos that lack an Austrian licence are void; the amounts paid in are reclaimable on the rules of unjust enrichment. The Austrian Supreme Court has settled this line over years, most recently in 6 Ob 31/24p. This article sets out the leading arguments and the most important decisions.
For years, operators have entered the Austrian recovery market who buy out players' claims against a one-off lump sum. In the civil law blog of derStandard, Attorney Dr. Oliver Peschel took the model apart. This article sets out what an instant settlement means economically, where the catch sits and which alternatives players have.
In August 2022 an Austrian player obtained a judgment of around 1.6 million euros against the Maltese operator of the online casino Pokerstars. Several Austrian media outlets reported the case in parallel. This article explains why the reasoning of the Vienna court carries far beyond the individual case and which checkpoints other proceedings need to clear.