Online Casino Refund Litigation in Germany and Austria: What the Courts Have Decided

25 player refund cases are on record as of 14 November 2026, 4 of them German and 10 Austrian, and the rest are the Maltese, Curaçao, Dutch and other proceedings in which those judgments are enforced, refused or copied. Austria's Supreme Court has ordered operators to repay casino and poker losses since May 2021.

Germany's Federal Court of Justice will announce its first merits verdicts on 28 January 2027. What have the courts decided, what is pending and what happens when a judgment has to be collected?

Counts are rendered on the build day; first-instance judgments are representative only; checked 14 November 2026.

No open settlement in this category: refunds come from individual judgments, not a claims process

There is no settlement, no claim form, no administrator and no claim deadline in this category as of 14 November 2026: every refund a German or Austrian player has obtained is an individual judgment for deposits minus withdrawals, or a payment made to end such a case.

A complaint states one side's allegations; only the court's orders decide anything. Only 4 US consumer settlements accept claims today across all gambling lawsuits by category, and none is a refund case.

The award is the player's net loss with interest and costs, not a share of a fund.

Where a litigation funder finances the case, reported funder terms range from 32 to 47 percent of the recovery, and the one figure in a court record is the 39 percent in OLG München 17 U 1857/25 e of 12 January 2026.

The open gambling class action settlements by deadline tracker lists no refund case. Judgments are collected from the operator itself, so the enforcement section below matters as much as the rulings.

The numbers in brief

The 25 cases split into 13 individual actions, 12 appellate or supreme-court decisions recorded as the lead record of a case, 0 collective proceedings outside Germany and Austria and 0 regulator matters; 19 carry a judgment, 4 a dismissal, 1 a pending appeal and 0 a stay.

The first table counts the cases by status, level and recent movement.

The second table names the controlling decision in each jurisdiction and points to its hub.

The third table shows how refund claims border the other categories on this site.

Lawsuits by company: the operators German and Austrian courts have ordered to repay

Most German and Austrian judgments name no operator, because the courts anonymize company names, so the table lists the entities the record itself identifies and marks every identification that rests on a law-firm or press report.

Tipico and the sports betting line

Tipico Co. Ltd is the operator in 2 records, among them the BGH's referral to the Court of Justice in C-530/24 over a EUR 3,719.26 claim that two lower courts had dismissed, and, per law-firm and press reports rather than the anonymized judgments, OLG decisions in Bamberg, Düsseldorf, Köln, München and Stuttgart ordering sports betting stakes placed before 9 October 2020 to be repaid. The count includes records identified as Tipico only by press or a law firm.

PokerStars, bwin, Lottoland and the Malta-licensed casino brands

The Austrian Supreme Court's standard citation, OGH 6 Ob 229/21a of 2 February 2022, concerns online poker with a Maltese operator the court calls T* Limited (PokerStars per press), and its EUR 73,536 bwin decision of 20 May 2021 (3 Ob 72/21s) names ElectraWorks Ltd of Gibraltar.

German courts mostly call the defendant an operator licensed in Malta. The one identified bwin award, LG Berlin 39 O 65/21 of 11 April 2022 (EUR 211,330.24), rests on a law-firm release because the text was not retrieved.

Curaçao operators and payment agents

The Curaçao records in the category show the other side of enforcement: the Joint Court of Justice confirmed on 10 March 2026 that Austrian refund judgments are enforceable against Raging Rhino N.V., while German courts have refused to make payment agents liable (OLG Köln 19 U 133/25, Hinweisbeschluss of 30 October 2025) and the BGH's Hinweisbeschluss of 13 September 2022 in XI ZR 515/21 refused a card-issuing bank's liability.

Court by court: what the BGH, the OGH and the Court of Justice have decided

The decided law sits at three levels: the Austrian Supreme Court has ruled for casino and poker players consistently since May 2021, the Court of Justice removed the EU-law defense for online casino games on 16 April 2026, and Germany's Federal Court of Justice will deliver its first merits verdicts on 28 January 2027.

Germany's Federal Court of Justice: two verdicts due 28 January 2027

The BGH's I. Zivilsenat heard I ZR 216/25 and I ZR 78/25 on 17 September 2026 and will announce both decisions on 28 January 2027; I ZR 216/25 is the designated Leitentscheidungsverfahren under § 552b ZPO (19 May 2026), so every comparable Revision is stayed behind it.

The first concerns EUR 10,092 that OLG Stuttgart upheld on 29 September 2025 (5 U 113/25); the second EUR 32,383.02 that OLG München reversed on 24 February 2025 (17 U 2661/24 e) because the place of play was not proven.

Earlier BGH steps decided nothing on the merits: I ZR 53/23 (EUR 132,850.55) has been stayed since 10 January 2024, and in I ZR 88/23 the Hinweisbeschluss of 22 March 2024 called the contracts void before the Revision was withdrawn. Pending appeals are tracked in pending appeals and high court gambling cases.

The Oberlandesgerichte: 2 appellate decisions and the ones that went against players

2 decisions of the Oberlandesgerichte are on record, 2 of them final judgments or orders for the player, 0 under Revision and 0 dismissals, and the OLG München alone accounts for the three decisions that cut against players on the merits: 17 U 2661/24 e (24 February 2025) and 36 U 1331/25 (12 June 2026) because the player could not separate play from Germany from play abroad, and 27 U 2436/25 e (5 January 2026) because a limit breach by a licensed sportsbook is not a Verbotsgesetz.

Another OLG München senate held the opposite on 19 June 2026 (36 U 713/25 e) and ordered EUR 5,498.21 repaid for bets above the EUR 1,000 monthly limit. Both questions are now before the BGH (I ZR 4/26 and I ZR 347/26), and the hearing dates are not confirmed in the court record.

Austria's Supreme Court: casino losses recoverable since May 2021, sports bets not

The OGH has ruled for players in the online casino and poker refund cases on record since 3 Ob 72/21s of 20 May 2021 (bwin, EUR 73,536): the contract is void under § 879 Abs. 1 ABGB, the stakes are recoverable by analogy to § 877 ABGB, the player's knowledge of the ban is irrelevant because the GSpG protects the player, and the monopoly is EU-compliant as a whole, so no referral is needed.

Sports betting goes the other way. The OGH dismissed 1 Ob 176/22x (27 January 2023, EUR 48,259.25, the Styrian betting act does not reach online bets from abroad), 8 Ob 112/23p (13 December 2023, EUR 22,857.50) and 9 Ob 76/25d (23 October 2025, EUR 35,000, e-sports bets are sports bets).

The largest casino award, 7 Ob 155/23d (11 December 2023), left EUR 516,262.71 final on a claim of EUR 615,996.18.

The Court of Justice: C-440/23 decided, C-530/24, C-574/24 and C-683/24 pending

On 16 April 2026 the Court of Justice held in C-440/23 (European Lotto and Betting, Deutsche Lotto- und Sportwetten) that EU law does not preclude Germany's internet ban of the GlüStV 2012, the nullity of the contracts or a civil action for restitution, and that playing with a Malta-licensed operator is not an abuse of EU rights; bad faith is a question for national law.

Three references are open. In C-530/24 (BGH I ZR 90/23, referred 25 July 2024) Advocate General Emiliou proposed on 19 March 2026 that a refund is owed unless the authorities gave precise, unconditional and consistent assurances; the judgment date is not confirmed.

C-574/24 asks about the place of damage under Rome II, and C-683/24 on Article 56A has a judgment scheduled for 19 November 2026 per secondary reports. All EU rulings are in Court of Justice gambling judgments: the full list.

Decisions by court level as of 14 November 2026

The table counts the records in this category by court level; the outcomes are read from each decision, and a stayed or appealed case counts as pending.

The same German decisions are explained one by one in BGH Online-Casino-Urteil: Leitentscheidung I ZR 216/25, the German-language owner of the verdict date.

Enforcement: Malta's Article 56A, Curaçao's courts and the Austrian response

Winning in Vienna or Cologne is not the same as being paid: since Article 56A of the Maltese Gaming Act took effect in June 2023, no Austrian refund judgment against a Malta-licensed operator has been enforced in Malta, and the five Maltese decisions of 2026 on record are all refusals or suspensions, per an Austrian law firm's tracker because the Maltese court texts could not be opened.

Article 56A (Act XXI of 2023) tells Maltese courts to refuse recognition of foreign judgments against licensees, and the Commission sent Malta a letter of formal notice on 18 June 2025 (INFR(2025)2100); no reasoned opinion has been found. The statute is explained in Malta Bill 55 (Article 56A Gaming Act).

Austria's Supreme Court has not accepted that Malta's refusal ends a case. OGH 7 Ob 16/25s (19 February 2025) held that non-enforcement in Malta does not make an action hopeless, 6 Ob 33/25h (26 March 2025) that the Maltese ordre public is no defense, and 3 Nc 72/24d (17 December 2024) designated BG Salzburg to attach a Maltese bank account.

On 26 October 2026 Malta's Court of Appeal referred seven questions on Article 56A (App. Ċiv. 410/2022/1), per the same law firm; no C-number has been found.

Curaçao runs the other way. The Joint Court of Justice confirmed twelve judgments on 10 March 2026 (for example ECLI:NL:OGHACMB:2026:115) that Austrian refund judgments are enforceable against Raging Rhino N.V., including an award of EUR 464,460 plus 4 percent interest, and a Curaçao court granted leave on 10 November 2025 to enforce a German judgment of EUR 372,016. Every Curaçao proceeding is in gambling lawsuits in Curaçao.

What changed in the last 60 days

0 refund cases were filed and 1 changed status between 15 September and 14 November 2026: the two BGH hearings of 17 September, the Brazilian AGU action over player balances of 19 October and the Maltese Court of Appeal's referral of 26 October.

• 26 October: Malta's Court of Appeal refers seven questions on Article 56A and Brussels Ia to the Court of Justice (App. Ċiv. 410/2022/1), per an Austrian law firm.
• 19 October: Brazil's federal government sues Select Operations in the 21ª Vara Federal in Rio de Janeiro over player balances after the betting ban, with an injunction of R$ 50,000 per day capped at R$ 1 million.
• 17 September: the BGH hears I ZR 216/25 and I ZR 78/25.

The dates ahead are 19 November 2026 for C-683/24 (per secondary reports) and 28 January 2027 for both BGH verdicts, while C-530/24 and C-574/24 have no date. The longer record is in what changed in gambling litigation in the last 60 days.

The legal theory in two paragraphs

German civil courts treat § 4 Abs. 4 GlüStV 2012 (and, from 1 July 2021, § 4 Abs. 4 GlüStV 2021) as a Verbotsgesetz under § 134 BGB, so a gambling contract with an operator that held no German permit at the time is void and the player recovers deposits minus withdrawals under § 812 Abs. 1 S. 1 BGB, with § 823 Abs. 2 BGB as a parallel tort claim.

The operator can resist under § 817 S. 2 BGB only by proving the player knew of the ban or ignored it recklessly. Limitation runs from the player's knowledge, accepted as late as 2021 to 2023. The reasoning is in why German courts order online casinos to refund losses.

Austria reaches the same result under § 879 Abs. 1 ABGB: the contract is void because the operator held no concession under § 14 GSpG, the stakes come back by analogy to § 877 ABGB, § 1174 ABGB is no bar, and the player's knowledge does not matter.

The OGH treats the monopoly as EU-compliant as a whole (RS0130636). The line and its follow-on decisions are collected in OGH-Rechtsprechung zur Rückforderung von Online-Glücksspielverlusten.

Steps at the BGH and the Court of Justice; the 19 November 2026 date rests on secondary reports; checked 14 November 2026.

Litigation funders, assignment and jurisdiction: what the courts allowed

Many German claims on record are financed by a litigation funder or sold to a claims purchaser, and the courts have answered the two questions that follow: a silent security assignment plus authorization to sue leaves the player as party and keeps the consumer forum at his residence (OLG Köln 19 U 183/25, 20 July 2026; OLG Nürnberg 13 U 1014/25, 12 May 2026), and the player must prove that authorization, which failed in OLG Brandenburg 6 U 15/25 (7 July 2026).

The funder's share comes out of any award, and the trade-offs are set out in litigation funders and online casino claims in Germany.

Every German ruling on the funder question is listed under gambling lawsuits in Germany.

Judgments and amounts to date

The largest final award in the record is Austrian: OGH 7 Ob 155/23d (11 December 2023) left EUR 516,262.71 final on a claim of EUR 615,996.18 and remanded EUR 46,170.33 for games played from Croatia, Slovenia, Slovakia and Kosovo, while the largest German claim on record, EUR 168,650.23 before the OLG München, was dismissed on 12 June 2026 and is now BGH I ZR 342/26.

Every figure is a judgment, a claim or a pending amount, never a settlement. Press reports of awards before the LG Kleve and LG Münster are left out because no court record confirms them.

Every case we track (25 cases, CSV)

The table lists all 25 refund cases in the record as of 14 November 2026, with court and docket, the decision or filing date, status and its date, and the primary source we read.

The same records download as CSV from the open data page under a CC BY 4.0 license.

Questions people ask

Can a player get money back from an online casino in Germany or Austria?

In Austria, yes by judgment since 2021 for casino games and poker played from Austria with an operator without an Austrian concession; in Germany the Oberlandesgerichte have ordered repayment for play from Germany with an operator without a German permit, if the player did not know of the ban, except where the player could not prove where he played, and the Federal Court of Justice decides on 28 January 2027. The German-language answer is Online Casino Geld zurück: was die Gerichte wirklich entschieden haben.

Whether losses can be recovered in other countries is covered in can you get gambling losses back.

Can you get money back from Tipico?

In Germany, for sports bets placed before Tipico's concession of 9 October 2020, OLGs in Bamberg, Düsseldorf, Köln, München and Stuttgart are reported to have ordered repayment, but the Federal Court of Justice has not decided and referred the EU-law question to the Court of Justice in C-530/24, where the Advocate General's opinion of 19 March 2026 favors the player and the judgment is pending; in Austria the OGH holds sports bets valid, so there is no refund route. Every Tipico case is in Tipico lawsuits.

The referral and its status are explained in EuGH C-530/24 (Tipico): Stand des Verfahrens.

How long does a refund claim take and what does a funder cost?

No court publishes a duration statistic; the documented cases ran twelve to twenty-four months to a first-instance judgment and two to four years through the OLG, and many German cases were stayed in 2024 to 2026 for the Court of Justice (a reading of the dockets in the record, not a court figure). Procedure and timing are in Online-Casino-Klage: Dauer, Kosten, Ablauf.

Reported funder terms range from 32 to 47 percent of the recovery, and no court has set a standard rate.

Can a bank reverse the payments instead?

No, not in Germany: in XI ZR 515/21 the BGH's Hinweisbeschluss of 13 September 2022 said that a player who authorized card payments to an online casino has no refund claim against the issuing bank, because the payment ban of § 4 Abs. 1 S. 2 GlüStV is addressed to the payment provider alone, and the Revision was then withdrawn. Payment disputes are covered in can your bank refund gambling payments.

What this page does not cover

The Dutch, New Zealand, Canadian and US debt, winnings and loss-recovery cases carried in this category rest on other theories and are listed in the table, not discussed here. The Dutch picture is in gambling lawsuits in the Netherlands.

Self-exclusion and duty-of-care claims, including the German decisions on casinos that ignored a ban, belong to gambling addiction lawsuits.

The nullity and knowledge rules behind the German cases are in why German courts order online casinos to refund losses.

Sources and method

Of the 25 cases on this page, 25 carry a status read directly from a published decision or court notice; the others rest on court press releases, regulator documents and the law-firm trackers named here, each flagged in the table.

Primary sources are the BGH Terminhinweise, Court of Justice press releases 43/26, 53/26 and 65/26 and the Austrian RIS.

The Austrian law firm tracker and the German firm trackers are cited as "per the law firm", never as the source of a status. See methodology and corrections.

Filing a claim is free. GamblingLawsuits.org is a non-profit public record, not a law firm and not a claims administrator, and it carries no advertising and no operator links.