Two claims and two deadlines
The question of limitation sounds like a single number. It is not. When reclaiming online casino losses, two different claims are in play, and they become time-barred differently.
The first claim is directed against the casino company. It rests on the law of unjust enrichment and is time-barred after 30 years. The second claim is directed against the acting managing directors personally. It is a damages claim and is time-barred three years after knowledge. Anyone who wants to keep both routes open must keep both deadlines in view. It is precisely this distinction that regularly gets lost in the public discussion of the topic.
The 30-year period against the casino
A gaming contract concluded with a non-licensed operator is void. The amounts paid in have therefore flowed without a legal basis and are recoverable under the rules of unjust enrichment. The Austrian Supreme Court has consolidated this line over the years, among others in 1 Ob 229/20p, and most recently confirmed it in 6 Ob 31/24p, a case conducted by our firm in which the operator’s extraordinary appeal was rejected for lack of a significant legal question.
For this enrichment-based recovery claim, the general limitation period of Section 1478 ABGB applies, that is 30 years. Losses from the last three decades are therefore generally actionable, provided the operator held no Austrian licence during the relevant period and directed its offer at the Austrian market. This long period is one of the central advantages of the Austrian legal position for affected players.
Why not three years? The casinos’ line of defence
In practice, casino operators regularly try to bring the short three-year limitation period into play. The argument is that the individual stakes are recurring payments and that the player account is a continuing obligation. On that basis, the defence argues, the three-year period of Section 1480 ABGB applies by analogy.
This argument ties into a principle that genuinely exists. The Austrian Supreme Court assesses the limitation of enrichment claims with a differentiating approach: the period follows the nature of the claim that the restitution replaces. Where a payment made without legal basis takes the place of a recurring payment, the short period applies by analogy. The Supreme Court has assumed this, for example, for wrongly paid insurance premiums (7 Ob 137/18z), for loan interest and for ongoing charges.
In our view, this reasoning cannot be transferred to the recovery of casino losses. The stakes are not an ongoing charge for a continuously received service, but a stake in a game that is void each time. In another context, namely the question of an offsettable benefit, the Supreme Court denied any separate service or entertainment element in the gambling contract (6 Ob 50/22d). Where such an ongoing service is absent, so is the connecting point for the short period. The general 30-year period of Section 1478 ABGB therefore remains, as the settled practice in proceedings concerning gambling losses handles it.
For affected players, this is the decisive point. The casino’s three-year objection aims to reduce the recoverable amount to a fraction.
A brief look at Germany
The Austrian legal position is more favourable here than the German one. In Germany, shorter standard periods apply to recovery claims, and their start and reach are currently assessed differently by the courts. The 30-year period in Austria gives injured parties a significantly larger and clearer window in which even losses going further back can be enforced.
The shorter period for managing director liability
The position is different where, alongside the casino, the acting managing directors are also held personally liable. This liability is not an enrichment claim but a damages claim. It is therefore subject to the limitation of Section 1489 ABGB, that is three years from knowledge of the damage and the wrongdoer, with an absolute maximum period of 30 years.
The practically most important point lies in the start of the period. The period only runs once the injured party knows both the damage and the person of the wrongdoer well enough to bring an action with prospects of success. Knowledge of the specific managing director regularly arises later than knowledge of the casino damage itself. Anyone who has lost money with a Maltese or Cypriot operating company initially knows nothing about the natural persons behind the company. When the period actually begins to run in the gambling context has, however, not yet been conclusively clarified in law. Our firm is currently conducting several proceedings on this before Austrian courts.
What must be observed, however, is the duty to make inquiries. The injured party may not remain passive where the information needed for a promising action could be obtained without significant effort. Anyone who wants to reliably preserve the limitation period on the managing director route should therefore not put off researching the responsible persons.
The consequence is clear: the casino claim has a very long time frame, managing director liability a much narrower window. Anyone who wants to combine both levers should examine personal liability early. More on this strand of liability in our article on managing director liability at online casino operators.
When does the limitation period start to run?
The two periods differ not only in length but also in their starting point.
The enrichment claim against the casino arises with the payment made without legal basis, that is with the respective deposit or loss. The 30-year period attaches to this objective moment, regardless of whether the player knew of their right of recovery.
The damages claim against the managing director, by contrast, begins to run with knowledge of the damage and the wrongdoer. Here, the subjective state of knowledge of the injured party counts, supplemented by the reasonable inquiry. This different connecting point is the actual reason why the two claims must be considered separately.
Securing evidence and the practical bottleneck
A long period is only useful insofar as the losses can be proven. With very old losses, documentation becomes the actual bottleneck. Casinos often make gambling histories available only to a limited extent retrospectively, and after a closure of the account, access to one’s own data with the operator is impeded.
Anyone considering recovery should keep old bank statements, transfer receipts, credit card statements and emails from the operator. These documents carry the amount of the claim and, in proceedings, often decide more than the pure legal question. We obtain the transaction lists from the operator itself for you. Do not request these documents yourself and do not close the account, in order to forestall any deletion. Instead, contact us promptly; we support you in reclaiming gambling losses going back a long way too, and examine each individual case. The legal period is generous, the actual provability is the limiting factor.
What does this mean for affected players?
Anyone who has lost money with an online casino without an Austrian licence can generally still assert their enrichment-based recovery claim over a very long period. According to settled practice, the casinos’ three-year objection does not change this.
The position is different with the personal liability of the managing directors. It can be a valuable additional lever for enforcement, but is time-barred much faster. A clean examination of both periods belongs at the start of every case preparation, not at its end. A blanket statement on limitation in an individual case is not possible; the concrete start of the period must always be clarified individually.
Frequently asked questions
How far back can I sue for online casino losses?
The enrichment claim against the casino is time-barred after 30 years (Section 1478 ABGB). Losses from the last three decades are therefore generally actionable, provided the operator held no Austrian licence during the relevant period. Actual enforceability depends above all on the documentation of the old losses.
Is it true that recovery is time-barred after three years?
Not for the claim against the casino. Casino operators sometimes argue that the stakes are recurring payments and therefore subject to the short period of Section 1480 ABGB by analogy. Stakes, however, are not an ongoing charge for a continuing service; the Supreme Court has denied any separate service element in the gambling contract (6 Ob 50/22d). According to settled practice, the 30-year period therefore remains.
Why is managing director liability time-barred faster?
Managing director liability is a damages claim under Section 1489 ABGB. Such claims are time-barred within three years of knowledge of the damage and the wrongdoer, with an absolute maximum of 30 years. When this period actually begins to run has not yet been clarified in law; we are currently conducting several proceedings on this before Austrian courts.
From when does the limitation period run for the claim against the casino?
From the payment made without legal basis, that is from the respective loss. Knowledge of the right of recovery is not relevant for this claim.
What should I do if my losses already go back years?
It is best to contact us today with your gambling losses and have the limitation situation examined. For the casino claim alone, there is usually still considerable time available. If managing director liability is also to be pursued, early clarification is important, because this route is time-barred faster.