OLG Köln 19 U 51/22 (OLG Köln): Status, Rulings and What It Means for Players

What this case is about

The Oberlandesgericht Köln (OLG Köln, the Cologne Higher Regional Court) decided case 19 U 51/22 on 31 October 2022. A German player sued an unlicensed online gambling operator based in Malta to recover losses from poker and blackjack played between 17 March 2014 and 12 June 2020.

The case is one of the appeal rulings in Online Casino Refund Litigation in Germany and Austria. The amount at issue was EUR 58,517.70, calculated as deposits minus payouts.

Who is covered

The case is an individual appeal, not a class action. It involved one German player and one operator without a German license.

The claim is a loss claim against an unlicensed online operator under German law. For more decisions from the German courts, see Gambling Lawsuits in Germany.

Is there a payout?

No payout exists in this case for other players. It is a judgment between one player and one operator, with no fund, no settlement and no claim process.

The sum at issue was EUR 58,517.70 for that player alone. The record shows no payment to a wider group.

What the court decided

The Landgericht Bonn (LG Bonn) had dismissed the claim on 26 April 2022 (7 O 178/21). On 31 October 2022 the OLG Köln reversed that decision.

The court held the following:

• The gambling contract was void under § 134 BGB in connection with § 4 Abs. 4 GlüStV 2012.
• The bar in § 817 S. 2 BGB was not met, and was in any case narrowed by the court.
• Sections 762, 814 and 242 BGB were no bar to the claim.
• A parallel tort claim existed under § 823 Abs. 2 BGB with § 4 GlüStV and § 284 StGB.
• The player bore no contributory fault.
• German law applied under the Rome I Regulation.

The limitation period ran from the player's knowledge in 2021, which the record puts at 21 December 2021. The court did not admit a Revision (an appeal on points of law). The ECLI is DE:OLGK:2022:1031.19U51.22.00.

As of 14 November 2026 the case is a decided appeal and the record shows no further step.

Why it matters

The ruling is a precedent for the void-contract route used in German refund litigation. It shows how an appellate court handled the usual defenses: the bar on recovering unlawful payments, limitation, and the player's own conduct.

A single first-instance outcome says little, since the LG Bonn ruled the other way. For what courts have ordered across countries, read Can You Get Gambling Losses Back?.

Questions people ask

Why was the contract void?

The OLG Köln held the contract void under § 134 BGB in connection with § 4 Abs. 4 GlüStV 2012, (the 2012 state treaty on gambling). The record describes the defendant as an unlicensed online gambling operator based in Malta.

Did the player share the blame?

No. The court found no contributory fault on the player's side. It also held that the bar in § 817 S. 2 BGB was not met and in any case narrowed.

When did the limitation period start?

The court ran limitation from the player's knowledge in 2021. The record puts the start at 21 December 2021.