Frequently asked questions on recovery

Reclaimable are all losses from games that would require an Austrian gambling licence and that the operator does not hold: slots, roulette, blackjack, baccarat, poker tournaments and cash games, all live-casino tables, and crypto-casino losses. Sports-betting losses can also be reclaimed, but on a different legal basis (partial incapacity to contract, § 865 ABGB); see the FAQ cluster on sports betting. Lotteries operated by the Austrian concession holder are excluded.

Losses at the Austrian concession holder for online gambling cannot be reclaimed, because the concession holder operates under a valid licence under the Austrian Gambling Act. State lotteries run by the concession holder (such as Lotto, EuroMillions or Toto) are also outside the scope. All other losses at online casinos without an Austrian concession are in principle reclaimable. Sports-betting losses follow a separate line based on partial incapacity to contract at the time of the bets (§ 865 ABGB), with a medical expert opinion serving as evidence; as a rule, an action becomes economically viable only above a loss amount of around 50,000 euros. For mixed operators offering several products, we separate losses by product and apply the appropriate legal basis to each.

Free of charge and without obligation. You send us your list of casinos and loss amounts, we assess prospects, clarify funding options and usually reply within a few working days. A phone call is possible but not mandatory. Only when we agree on the mandate and you sign the mandate agreement do we start the actual work. Before that, no costs arise for you.

Reclaimable are the amounts you actually deposited and lost. Pure bonus credits granted by the casino are not part of the claim, because they did not originate from your own funds. However, if you deposit your own money to meet bonus wagering requirements and lose that real money in the process, that real-money loss is of course part of the claim. We work this out cleanly when preparing the case.

As a guideline we take on cases starting at EUR 1,000 net loss per casino operator. In specific cases the threshold may be higher; we assess every case individually. Several smaller losses at different operators can well add up and reach the threshold, because each casino is assessed separately. Send us your list and we will tell you free of charge whether a lawsuit makes sense in your case.

The mandate process is fully digital. You send us your loss list by e-mail or via the contact form, we review, get back to you with an initial assessment and provide the mandate agreement and power of attorney for electronic signature. In-person meetings are not required but are available at any time. For follow-ups you reach Dr. Peschel or his team directly, no call centre and no automated queue.

No. Under the Austrian Gambling Act only the operator faces criminal liability, not the player. You therefore need not fear criminal consequences if you consult a lawyer after a casino session. There is also no tax effect from the gambling itself, because for private individuals in Austria gambling is neither taxable nor subject to a reporting duty. Recovery remains a purely civil matter with no criminal risk for you.

Several Austrian Supreme Court cases are currently before the Court of Justice of the EU for an EU-law assessment of the Austrian gambling monopoly. A decision is not expected before 2027. For ongoing cases this changes little, because national OGH case law (in particular 6 Ob 31/24p) provides a stable foundation. Some operators apply for a stay of proceedings citing the CJEU referral, but Austrian courts rarely grant it. We do not wait for the CJEU but run cases on the basis of existing case law.

It is best to prepare a list of all casinos at which you incurred losses. This is important because some casinos belong to the same company and the list allows us to gain an overview.

Not necessarily, but it complicates the case. Casinos respond to unilateral chargebacks with collection demands or by suspending the player account. Some operators later argue in court that the player has already taken matters into their own hands. The civil route via us is cleaner, because the claim is properly titled and EU enforcement is established. If you have already issued chargebacks, document them. We factor them into how we frame the case.

Yes, and it often strengthens the case. When a casino ignores a self-exclusion, fails to enforce limits or does not respond to visible signs of problem gambling, it breaches player protection duties. That supports our argument, because it is then not only the missing concession that matters but also the lack of protection. Mention such circumstances in the initial consultation; they can add leverage to the case.

No, we treat all names and all gambling losses confidentially. We do not issue press releases with claimants' names and we do not use client data for marketing.

The range is wide. If the casino acknowledges the claim out of court, payment can come within weeks. With full litigation expect six to fifteen months for the first instance, and longer in rare appeal cases. We do not promise quick payouts or work with blanket figures. In the mandate consultation we clarify which timeline is realistic for your specific operator.

No, at least not on your own initiative. While the account is open, you have access to playing history, transactions, bonus statements and mailings. A block or termination by the casino may occur and is no disadvantage to your case. In that situation, contact us with the operators concerned and an approximate loss amount, and we will discuss the next steps together.

Austria has no true class action like the US. We run each case as an individual lawsuit by you against the relevant operator, because this is the clean procedural basis and you retain full control over your claim. Several players against the same operator are organised in coordinated tracks, which adds efficiency and bargaining strength without you giving up procedural rights. Successes by other clients against the same operator have a positive effect on comparable follow-up cases.

For the first contact two pieces of information are enough: which online casinos you played at and how high your approximate total loss per operator was. All further documents such as playing history, terms of service or identity papers are obtained by us. That is part of our work. If you happen to have old e-mails or bank statements at hand, you are welcome to send them along, but it is not required.

Four steps: mandate and document collection, demand letter with payment deadline to the casino operator, action at the player's Austrian home court (Articles 17, 18 Brussels Ia Regulation), enforcement after a final judgment. Some operators pay after the demand letter, others contest the case fully; the outcome is not predictable in the individual case. If a casino contests fully, first-instance proceedings usually take between six and fifteen months. With Malta-based operators the case sometimes ends in a settlement, with the settlement amount being negotiable and regularly falling below the full claim.

Formally yes, in practice the picture is more nuanced. Within the EU, Austrian judgments are recognised under the Brussels I Recast Regulation and no separate exequatur is required. With Malta-based operators, however, enforcement on Malta is delayed or obstructed by the Maltese Bill 55, which is why proceedings there frequently end in a settlement. The settlement amount is negotiable in the individual case and regularly falls below the full claim. With operators based in third countries such as Curaçao the EU enforcement track is not available; here we additionally examine whether the casino holds European assets, whether enforcement against payment service providers is possible, or whether managing director liability applies. Before each filing we assess commercial enforceability concretely.

The civil law argument is robust against both Malta-based and Curaçao-based operators, supported by settled Austrian Supreme Court case law. The bottleneck is enforcement, not the claim itself. With Malta operators the Brussels I Recast Regulation is formally applicable, but in practice enforcement is delayed or obstructed by the Maltese Bill 55, which is why proceedings frequently end in a settlement. The settlement amount is negotiable in the individual case and regularly falls below the full claim. With Curaçao operators the EU enforcement track is not available; additional levers come into play, such as personal liability of the acting managing directors or action against European payment service providers handling the casino's transactions. Before filing, we examine for each operator whether the case is economically viable.

Yes, for two reasons: first, gambling with crypto stakes is subject to the Austrian Gambling Act because the element of staking something of value is met. Second, none of the typical crypto casinos (Stake, Roobet, Bitstarz and the like) holds an Austrian concession. Recovery follows the same rules as for fiat casinos. The additional challenge lies in enforcement, because many crypto operators are based in third countries such as Curaçao. We assess economic enforceability on a per-case basis.

Yes, under certain conditions. When managing directors knowingly participate in a business operation lacking the required concession, tort damages under § 1295 ABGB come into play. This lever matters particularly with operators from third countries, because the claim is not tied to the company's assets and remains enforceable within the EU provided the director has assets there. Important caveat: this is subject to the shorter three-year limitation under § 1489 ABGB, running from knowledge of the damage and the wrongdoer. The mandate should therefore start promptly.

Winnings from gambling contracts with casinos lacking an Austrian concession are themselves void under settled case law and therefore not enforceable. The practical lever lies elsewhere: your losses from the current and earlier playing periods are recoverable under unjust enrichment. We assess your case and bundle the recoverable claims in a single set of proceedings.

In an insolvency your claim is filed as an insolvency claim, and the recovery depends on the available assets. In the casino sector this matters because some smaller operators repeatedly disappear or lose their licences. That is exactly why, before each filing, we check the operator's economic stability. With operators at high insolvency risk we often combine the case with personal liability of the managing directors, because that liability outlasts the company's insolvency.

Yes, but on a different legal basis than casino losses. The main point of attachment is partial incapacity to contract under § 865 of the Austrian Civil Code (ABGB) at the time of the bets, supported among others by Austrian Supreme Court case law (OGH 1 Ob 176/22x). Pathological gambling addiction alone is not sufficient; what needs to be shown is that the freedom of will at the time of the bets was suspended. The evidence is provided by a medical expert opinion. Because of the costs of expert opinion, multi-instance proceedings and cross-border enforcement, a sports-betting action as a rule becomes economically viable only above a loss amount of around 50,000 euros. Unlike with casino claims, the licensing question is not the decisive lever here: claims may be considered both against foreign online betting operators and against holders of an Austrian Land betting licence, provided the player suffered from a corresponding addiction. Prospects are assessed in the individual case.

In principle, all online sports-betting operators that target players in Austria may be considered, both foreign operators and holders of an Austrian Land betting licence. Unlike with casino claims, the licensing question is not the decisive point of attachment. What matters is the proof of partial incapacity to contract (§ 865 ABGB) at the time of the bets, regularly established by a medical expert opinion. Prospects of success differ from operator to operator and case to case and are assessed individually.

As with casino losses, the 30-year limitation under § 1478 ABGB applies in principle. With sports betting, however, the nullity of the contract does not follow from a missing licence but from partial incapacity to contract at the time of the bets (§ 865 ABGB). Caveat: managing director liability as a tort claim is subject to the shorter three-year limitation under § 1489 ABGB, running from knowledge of the damage and the wrongdoer. If you want to use that additional avenue, the mandate should not be delayed too long.

Usually no personal cost risk. On request we arrange a litigation funder who covers all lawyer, court and expert fees. In case of success the funder keeps an agreed share of the recovery; in case of loss you bear no costs. Alternatives are legal-expenses insurance (if covered) or self-funding under the statutory fee schedule. Which route suits your case is something we discuss in the initial consultation, which is free of charge.

Unjust-enrichment claims arising from void gambling contracts are subject to a 30-year limitation period in Austria (§ 1478 of the Civil Code, ABGB). Losses from the past three decades are therefore in principle actionable, provided the operator had no Austrian concession during the relevant period. Documentation becomes harder the older the losses, because casinos only provide playing histories for a limited time. Keep old bank statements and operator e-mails, both help with evidence.