- Status
- Judgment entered (judgment)
- As of
- 12 Feb 2025 · read from the court record
- Court
- Bundesverwaltungsgericht, 8. Senat · Supreme or high court
- Docket
- 8 C 2.24
- Filed
- 2022
- Type
- Operator v. regulator, advertising and marketing lawsuits
- Money
- No settlement fund or award on record
- Payout
- No payout exists as of 14 Nov 2026
Status words follow the court record: a complaint states one side's allegations, only the court's orders decide anything. Filing a settlement claim is always free.
What this case is about
After VG Mainz (11.05.2023, 1 K 359/22.MZ) and OVG Koblenz (19.03.2024, 6 A 10927/23.OVG), the BVerwG held that printing the lottery's logo on charitable information material is gambling advertising under § 5 GlüStV 2021 whenever an average observer sees at least a partial sales-promotion aim; the duty to pass advertising rules on to third parties is specific and proportionate. The plaintiff's revision failed, the Land's succeeded.
What this case is about
The Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court), 8. Senat, decided BVerwG, Urteil vom 12.02.2025, 8 C 2.24, on image advertising by a social lottery. The plaintiff is the provider of a nationally known social lottery that funds the inclusion of people with disabilities. The case is one of the Advertising and Marketing Lawsuits heard in Germany.
The plaintiff challenged conditions (Nebenbestimmungen) attached in June 2022 to its lottery permit, issued on 3 June 2022 by the Ministerium des Innern und für Sport of Rheinland-Pfalz. It relied on § 5 GlüStV 2021 (the definition of advertising) and on Articles 5 and 12 of the Grundgesetz. The case was filed in 2022.
Who is covered
The defendant is the Land Rheinland-Pfalz, with the position of the GGL (Gemeinsame Glücksspielbehörde der Länder) supported. Loschelder acted for the GGL side, according to the firm's release. Other GGL disputes appear under GGL (Gemeinsame Glücksspielbehörde der Länder) Lawsuits.
The ruling affects lottery providers, including charitable lotteries, that print their logo on information material or pass advertising duties on to third parties.
Other German cases are listed on the Gambling Lawsuits in Germany page.
Is there a payout?
No payout exists in this case. It is a dispute between a lottery provider and a state authority over permit conditions, and the record shows no fund, claim form or claim process for players.
What the court decided
The case went through three instances. VG Mainz ruled on 11.05.2023 (1 K 359/22.MZ), OVG Koblenz on 19.03.2024 (6 A 10927/23.OVG), and the BVerwG on 12.02.2025 (8 C 2.24).
The BVerwG held that printing the lottery's logo on charitable information material is gambling advertising under § 5 GlüStV 2021 whenever an average observer sees at least a partial sales-promotion aim. It also held that the duty to pass advertising rules on to third parties is specific and proportionate.
The plaintiff's revision (appeal on points of law) failed. The Land's revision succeeded on condition 5.n.
As of 14 November 2026 the record shows status "judgment" (12 February 2025), with no further hearing recorded.
Why it matters
The record classes the ruling as precedent. It sets a wide reading of advertising: a logo on charity material counts if an average observer sees a partial promotional aim, even when the material carries a social purpose.
That reading applies to the advertising rules for lotteries across the German states. See Advertising and Marketing Lawsuits for the wider group.
Related cases
- OVG Sachsen-Anhalt, Beschluss vom 11.07.2024, 3 M 105/24 (casino streamer resident in Portugal): another German advertising ruling, status "judgment".
Questions people ask
What did the BVerwG decide in 8 C 2.24?
It held that printing a lottery's logo on charitable information material is gambling advertising under § 5 GlüStV 2021 whenever an average observer sees at least a partial sales-promotion aim.
Who won, the lottery or the Land?
The plaintiff's revision failed and the Land's revision succeeded on condition 5.n, so the Land prevailed on the main points in the record.
Can players claim money from this case?
No. It concerned permit conditions for a lottery provider, and the record shows no player fund.
Who is involved
Plaintiffs: provider of a nationally known social lottery funding inclusion of people with disabilities
| Defendants | Land Rheinland-Pfalz (Ministerium des Innern und für Sport); GGL position supported |
|---|---|
| Defense counsel | Loschelder (for the GGL side, per firm release) |
| Claims |
|
Is there a payout?
No payout exists in this case as of 14 Nov 2026.
What happens next
No future date is on the record we hold. The case is closed on the record we hold; later appeals or enforcement steps would be added here.
Timeline
2 dated steps on record, oldest first. Future dates come from court notices and can move.
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2022 | Filed |
| 12 Feb 2025 | Judgment entered |
Documents and sources
2 primary sources (court file, administrator notice, regulator) and 0 secondary. Press is supporting evidence only.
- Docket: bverwg.de
- Press coverage: lotterydaily.com
| What it supports | Source | Type | Retrieved |
|---|---|---|---|
| press release 6/2025, instance chain, holding | bverwg.de | primary | 14 Nov 2026 |
| 8 C 2.24, Urteil 12.02.2025; VG Mainz 1 K 359/22.MZ (11.05.2023); OVG Koblenz 6 A 10927/23.OVG (19.03.2024); defendant Ministerium des Innern und fuer Sport Rheinland-Pfalz (permit of 03.06.2022); defendant's revision succeeded on condition 5.n, plaintiff's revision rejected | bverwg.de | primary | 14 Nov 2026 |
Related cases
1 case in the record share parties, claims or a settlement with this one.
| Case | Court | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Offshore casino streamer banned (OVG Magdeburg 2024) | Oberverwaltungsgericht des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt, 3. Senat | Judgment entered |
Last checked against the sources on 14 Nov 2026. Found an error? Tell us and we correct the record with a dated note.