- The Regional Court of Wuppertal rejects repayment claims against PayPal, in accordance with previous court rulings.
- The legal relationship between PayPal and users is based on the payment services framework agreement.
- The court finds that PayPal has not breached any obligations with regard to payment processing.
- It is the responsibility of users to inform themselves about the legal aspects of online gambling.
- The plaintiff was unable to prove a claim for enrichment pursuant to Section 812 BGB.
- Contracts are not void pursuant to Section 134 BGB as long as they do not violate any legal prohibition.
- The ruling provides legal certainty for providers of gambling and skill games.
For individuals who thought in the past that they could participate in online casinos and get their money back later, their time is up.
After I have already reported in this article and this article that courts have rejected claims against credit card providers, the Wuppertal Regional Court has now also decided to reject a claim for a refund against PayPal.
The court first states:
The legal relationship between PayPal and its users is defined as a payment services framework contract in accordance with the German Civil Code (BGB). § 675 f para. 2 sentence 1 of the German Civil Code (BGB) and within the meaning of Chapter 3 of the European Payment Services Directive PSD II, which is brought about by successful registration.
But then comes to the conclusion
The defendant has fulfilled the (protective) obligations incumbent upon it under the payment services framework agreement pursuant to § 241 para. 2 BGB not violated. Such a breach of duty follows neither from the conclusion of the cooperation agreements with the respective online casinos nor from the execution of the specific payment orders of the plaintiff. Nor is it the defendant’s responsibility to prevent the plaintiff from participating in gambling that may be prohibited.
The LG also agrees with the opinion of the OLG Munich and states:
Contrary to the plaintiff’s view, there is also no claim under the law of enrichment pursuant to § 812 para. 1 P. 1 BGB. The plaintiff has not shown and proved that the defendant has obtained anything without legal ground. The relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff is governed by the payment services framework agreement. Contrary to the plaintiff’s view, this contract is not void pursuant to § 134 of the German Civil Code (BGB), since it does not in itself violate any statutory prohibition.
And finally:
Further claims, in particular those based on tort law pursuant to Sec. 823 para. 1 or para. 2 in conjunction with the provisions of the Interstate Treaty on Gaming also fail on the basis of the above considerations. The defendant cannot be accused of any culpable violation of legal interests to the detriment of the plaintiff.
The ruling should probably be the end for companies like “We’ll get your money back” and legal certainty for providers of gambling but especially SkillGames. The expert opinions required in the past for my clients on skillgaming and the legal situation so that these providers could include various payment providers at all should be over.
