Stanley v ADM (Lotto single-concession tender): Allegations, Court Orders and Status

What this case is about

Case C-375/17 is a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union (Second Chamber) from Italy's Consiglio di Stato, brought by Stanley International Betting Ltd and Stanleybet Malta Ltd against the Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze and the Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli (ADM).

It belongs with the other lottery lawsuits on this site, though it is a tender dispute and not a ticket dispute.

Stanley challenged the 2015-2016 tender that gave the Lotto concession to the Lottoitalia consortium led by Lottomatica, the only bidder. The Court received the reference on 21 June 2017. Stanley relied on Articles 49 and 56 TFEU (freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services).

Who is covered

The parties are two betting companies and two Italian public bodies, one of them the finance ministry covered in the page on Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze lawsuits. The ruling is not a class action and has no class of players.

It affects bidders for state gambling concessions in the European Union. It also matters to Italian authorities, who run the Lotto tender, and the wider gambling lawsuits in the European Union show how often concession design reaches the Court.

Is there a payout?

No payout exists in this case for players. It is a dispute between operators and the state over how a concession was tendered, and the record shows no fund, no claim process and no administrator.

Money figures in the record describe the tender, not a payment to anyone: a basic contract value of EUR 700 million, Lotto sales of EUR 6.6 billion in 2014, and a winning offer by Lottoitalia of EUR 770 million (reported by press).

What the court decided

The Court gave judgment on 19 December 2018. It held that a sole-concessionaire model for Lotto, a high basic contract value (EUR 700 million) and the withdrawal clauses are compatible with Articles 49 and 56 TFEU, provided they are consistent, clear and proportionate.

Whether they meet that test is for the national court to verify. Advocate General E. Sharpston delivered the opinion in the case.

Stanley challenged three features: the single-concessionaire model in art. 1(653) of Law 190/2014, the EUR 700 million basic value, and withdrawal clauses covering indicted concessionaires and the marketing of comparable games without a licence.

The Consiglio di Stato rejected Stanley's appeal in August 2019. As of 14 November 2026 the status is judgment, and the record shows no later step.

Why it matters

The judgment is a precedent on how far a state may concentrate a gambling concession in one operator. Single-operator models survive if the conditions are proportionate and clear, and the national court checks that.

For a count of what has actually been paid out in gambling cases, see the tracker of gambling settlements by year and amount, which does not include this case because no settlement exists.

Questions people ask

Did the Court of Justice say a single Lotto concessionaire is lawful?

It said the model is compatible with Articles 49 and 56 TFEU if consistent, clear and proportionate. The Court left the final check to the Consiglio di Stato, which rejected Stanley's appeal in August 2019.

Who won the Lotto concession?

The Lottoitalia consortium, led by Lottomatica, which was the only bidder in the 2015-2016 tender. Press reports an offer of EUR 770 million against a basic value of EUR 700 million.

Can players claim anything from this case?

No. No claim process exists. Filing a settlement claim is free where a claim exists, but this case has no fund for players.

Related cases

• Stanley v ADM, Lotto concession tender (Consiglio di Stato): the Italian appeal that followed the referral, status judgment.
• Sisal, Stanleybet Malta v ADM, Gratta e Vinci (C-721/19 and C-722/19): a later Court of Justice ruling on Italian lottery concessions, status judgment.