OLG Brandenburg 2 U 24/25 (Brandenburgisches Oberlandesgericht): Status, Rulings and What It Means for Players

What this case is about

OLG Brandenburg 2 U 24/25 is a judgment of the Brandenburgisches Oberlandesgericht dated 16 June 2025 (ECLI:DE:OLGBB:2025:0616.2U24.25.00). A German player sued an unlicensed online gambling operator based in Malta to get his losses back, and the appeal court decided the case after the LG Frankfurt (Oder) judgment of 5 July 2024 (11 O 156/23).

The claims rested on unjust enrichment (§ 812 Abs. 1 S. 1 Alt. 1 BGB), the voidness of the contracts (§ 134 BGB with § 4 Abs. 4 GlüStV 2012) and tort (§ 823 Abs. 2 BGB with § 4 GlüStV and § 284 StGB). The case is part of Online Casino Refund Litigation in Germany and Austria.

Who is covered

The judgment concerns one German player and the Malta-licensed operator he sued. The play ran from April 2014 to October 2020.

It does not create a class or a fund. It is one appeal court's decision, and other courts decide their own cases. The wider Gambling Lawsuits in Germany page places it among the German courts.

Is there a payout?

No class payout exists in this case: there is no settlement fund, no claim deadline and no administrator. The court ordered the operator to pay this one player EUR 505.98 plus interest from 21 January 2024. That is the judgment amount for the party, not an estimate for anyone else.

The rest of the claim, covering pre-litigation fees and earlier interest, was dismissed. The record shows no consumer claim process.

What the court decided

On 16 June 2025 the appeal court held that the player may sue in his own name despite a security assignment to a funder (gewillkürte Prozessstandschaft).

It held that the contracts were void under § 134 BGB (§ 4 Abs. 1 and 4 GlüStV 2012) and rejected the operator's defenses under § 817 S. 2, § 814 and § 762 BGB.

The court also applied § 823 Abs. 2 BGB with § 4 Abs. 4 GlüStV 2012 and § 284 StGB. Claims for play before 1 January 2020 were time-barred, but § 852 BGB was available. The court made no referral and no stay, and it did not admit a Revision.

Why it matters

The judgment is one entry in the German appeal-court line on refunds from unlicensed online casinos. This site describes German first-instance refund judgments through the appellate line and published statistics, so a single judgment is not a rule that all courts rule for players.

For the wider picture, see the guide Can You Get Gambling Losses Back? What Courts Have Ordered, country by country.

Questions people ask

Can a player sue in his own name after assigning the claim to a litigation funder?

In this case, yes. The OLG Brandenburg held on 16 June 2025 that the player could sue in his own name despite a security assignment to a funder.

Were claims from before 2020 time-barred?

Claims for play before 1 January 2020 were time-barred. The court found § 852 BGB available, and it awarded EUR 505.98 plus interest.

Did the court refer the question to the CJEU?

No. The court made no referral and no stay, and it did not admit a Revision.