In recent years, legal claims across Europe have cast a spotlight on the subject of player refunds in the online gaming industry, particularly in markets where operators have previously operated without proper licensing. From Germany to the Netherlands, players and advocates are seeking refunds on losses, challenging operators over licensing discrepancies, and raising questions about consumer protection and corporate accountability. Meanwhile, Austria permits unlicensed operators to reclaim winnings from players. Legal experts and industry leaders gathered in a panel discussion at SiGMA Europe to debate the complex issues around consumer rights, legal jurisdiction, and the responsibilities of both operators and players.
Are black-market players making gambling risk-free?
In Germany, a legal debate over unlicensed bets may allow German bettors to claim millions in refunds. This follows a complaint involving sports betting operator Tipico, in which a player sought a refund for €3,719.26 in losses. German law dictates that operators lacking a German licence—regardless of an EU licence—cannot legally offer gambling services in the country. Consequently, if deemed illegal, contracts made during the unlicensed period could be nullified, potentially granting refunds to affected bettors. Due to inconsistent lower court rulings, Germany’s Federal Court of Justice (BGH) referred the case to the European Court of Justice (ECJ), seeking clarity on whether these contracts were legally valid—a decision that could impact all European operators.
The SiGMA Europe panel explored the industry’s outlook on the implications of this case, with Olivier De Bono, CEO of Quantum Gaming, voicing his support for the operators’ stance. He argued that the flawed German licensing process had unfairly hindered many companies, saying, “The terms and conditions were agreed on; it wasn’t the operators’ choice to operate unlicensed—it was a regulatory delay.” He contended that the ECJ’s past decisions have defended the EU’s stance on freedom of service, which could lead to a ruling that sides with operators, affirming their rights under EU law.
Similarly, in the Netherlands, an advocacy group is leading a class-action lawsuit seeking refunds for Dutch gamblers’ losses incurred before online gambling was legalised in October 2021. The suit argues that operators like Unibet and PokerStars should be held accountable for these losses during the period they operated without Dutch licences.
Industry perspectives
The panellists provided diverse viewpoints on whether signing up for a gambling platform represents a binding contract in the absence of a local licence. Marianna Tavella, Chief Legal Officer at SiGMA Group, emphasised that while terms and conditions do create an agreement, they must not unfairly disadvantage the consumer. “A contract that is fundamentally unfair to the consumer can be considered void in its entirety,” she explained, noting that operators must prioritise transparent, fair terms to avoid potential nullification of their agreements.
Duncan Garvie, Head of ADR Services at CasinoReviews.com, pointed out a fundamental gap in player knowledge about licensing and legality. “Many players simply don’t know if a platform is legal in their jurisdiction,” Garvie stated. “There is a pressing need for better consumer education so that players can make informed decisions.” However, Garvie also emphasised that once players consciously choose to gamble on unlicensed sites, their entitlement to refunds becomes debatable.
Balancing player responsibility and operator duties
The panel debated whether players bear any responsibility in cases where they knowingly participate on unlicensed platforms. De Bono raised a provocative question about player accountability, noting, “Some players use VPNs to access casinos, knowingly skirting local restrictions. Should operators bear the full burden if a player actively bypasses legal barriers?” Austria has adopted a unique stance on the matter: in cases where a player has engaged with an unlicensed operator, the Austrian courts allow both parties to seek refunds. The absence of a valid licence renders the contract between the player and the operator void, allowing players to reclaim their losses but also enabling operators to reclaim any winnings. Austrian courts argue that this approach prevents “risk-free” gambling, where players could gamble with unlicensed operators and then sue for refunds only if they lost, thus discouraging a one-sided system of accountability.
“I’ve had experience with players who know that a casino is outside their region. They use a VPN to sign up, and if they lose funds, they think, ‘Okay, I’ll take this to my local authority.’ Where is the ADR to protect the operator then?” asked De Bono.
Tânia Pinho, Senior Associate at Lektou – Cortés, Sociedade de Advogados, argued that standardised international regulations could help clarify such cases, adding that “a harmonised framework would offer clearer guidelines, reducing disputes over jurisdiction and compliance.”
Acknowledging the frequent cases of players leveraging legal loopholes to claim refunds after losses, Garvie suggested a balanced approach, underscoring that “responsibility lies on both sides, but operators are ultimately the commercial entities profiting from these interactions.” However, he also conceded that certain jurisdictions target consumers who engage in unlicensed gambling, although the practice remains rare.
Toward a fair and transparent industry
Emini, CTO of SiGMA Group, advocated for industry self-regulation through improved communication and transparency between operators and players. He remarked, “Our role as affiliates or operators is to provide accurate, accessible information that empowers players to make informed choices. Building trust with consumers is the best strategy for fostering long-term growth.”
Unlock winning moments: Discover the best odds on SiGMA Play.
