Regional Court Koblenz: Reclaiming Online Casino Losses from Operators (2015-2020)
The question of whether a gambler can reclaim losses suffered in an online casino between 2015 and 2020 from its operator was recently decided by the 1st Civil Chamber of the Regional Court of Koblenz. The Chamber's ruling aligns with current case law, much of which is discussed on our blog.
Background of the Case: Online Casino Operations Without a German License
The defendant in this case is a prominent online gaming operator based in Malta. This operator manages several online casino sites and possesses a gaming license from the Malta Gaming Authority.
Crucially, at the time of the disputed gaming transactions, the defendant lacked a corresponding gaming license for Germany or specifically for the federal state of Rhineland-Palatinate, where the plaintiff resides. Despite this, the defendant's websites, including their FAQs and Terms and Conditions, were presented entirely in German.
Between December 27, 2015, and December 2, 2020, the plaintiff incurred significant losses on these online casino platforms. After accounting for winnings, the total net loss amounted to €632,250.00.
The plaintiff asserts a right to reclaim these lost stakes. This claim is based on the argument that online gambling was legally prohibited in Germany during that period. Furthermore, the plaintiff only became aware of this prohibition in 2022, which prevents the claims for repayment from being time-barred.
Ultimately, the plaintiff filed an action seeking full reimbursement of the stakes, totaling €632,250.
The Ruling by the Regional Court of Koblenz
The 1st Civil Chamber of the Regional Court of Koblenz ruled in favor of the plaintiff, granting the claim in full. The court found that the plaintiff had a valid claim for the repayment of €632,250.00 in lost stakes.
Invalidity of the Online Gaming Agreement
The court determined that the defendant had obtained these funds without legal grounds. The online gaming agreement between the parties violated a statutory prohibition of online gambling during the relevant period and was therefore void. This means that, from a legal perspective, no valid contract for the online gambling activities ever existed.
Irrelevance of Subsequent Legalization
It is true that the State Treaty on Gambling was amended in 2021, potentially allowing for permissions for public gambling on the internet. However, the court clarified that the critical point for assessing the legality was the time when the transactions occurred. Therefore, any subsequent legalization of the defendant's offering was irrelevant to the current case.
Inapplicability of German Civil Code Provisions
The defendant could not rely on Section 762 of the German Civil Code (BGB) to prevent the recovery. This specific provision only applies when the claim for recovery is solely based on the character of gambling itself, which was not the case here.
Furthermore, the defendant could not invoke Section 817 sentence 2 BGB. This section generally excludes recovery if the party providing the service also violated a statutory prohibition. However, for this provision to apply, the defendant would have had to prove that the plaintiff intentionally violated the prohibition or recklessly disregarded its unlawfulness. A mere objective violation by the plaintiff is insufficient.
Plaintiff's Lack of Knowledge Regarding Prohibition
During the plaintiff's personal hearing, the court found no evidence that the plaintiff was actively aware of the prohibition of online gambling in Germany (outside Schleswig-Holstein) at the time. The plaintiff had easily registered on the defendant's German-language website and made payments without issues.
The court noted that it is not immediately apparent why games of chance permitted in physical arcades and casinos should be entirely banned when offered online and advertised in the media. Given that the defendant held a license in an EU state and offered its services freely in Germany, the plaintiff was not reasonably expected to assume that cross-border online offerings could be prohibited.
Claims Not Time-Barred
Finally, the court concluded that the asserted claims were not time-barred. The defendant failed to provide proof that the plaintiff had become aware of the circumstances giving rise to the claim before 2022.
Conclusion
This landmark decision by the Regional Court of Koblenz reinforces the legal principle that online gambling contracts entered into without a valid German license are void. It underscores the right of consumers to reclaim their losses in such instances, especially when there is no clear evidence of their subjective awareness of the prohibition.
This ruling serves as an important precedent for gamblers seeking to recover funds from unlicensed online casino operators in Germany, reflecting a broader legal trend in consumer protection against illegal online gaming activities.