Bundesgericht confirms Gespa's DNS blocks of three Maltese betting sites: Allegations, Court Orders and Status

What this case is about

In judgments 2C_336/2021, 2C_337/2021 and 2C_338/2021 of 18 May 2022, the Bundesgericht (Swiss Federal Supreme Court, II. öffentlich-rechtliche Abteilung) dismissed appeals by A.-Gaming Ltd. and two other Maltese online gambling companies against DNS blocks imposed by the Interkantonale Geldspielaufsicht Gespa, formerly Comlot.

The operators challenged the blocking of their domains under art. 86 to 88 of the Geldspielgesetz (BGS), invoking art. 3 lit. a (what counts as a Geldspiel), economic freedom and proportionality. The case is one of the regulators and attorneys general in court matters in which an operator contests an enforcement tool.

Who is covered

The appellants are three Maltese online gambling companies, represented by MME Legal. One of the three judgments (2C_337/2021, from Geldspielgericht decision 24-20) concerns seven domains.

The ruling affects foreign operators without a Swiss licence whose sites Gespa places on its blocking list. It does not involve players as parties. Other Swiss cases are collected under Gambling lawsuits in Switzerland.

Is there a payout?

No payout exists in this case. It is a challenge to administrative blocking orders, and the record shows no fund, damages or claim process for players.

Court costs were set at CHF 17,000 in 2C_336/2021 and CHF 15,000 each in 2C_337/2021 and 2C_338/2021. The Geldspielgericht had earlier reduced the Comlot objection fee from CHF 10,375 to CHF 6,000 in case 23-20 and from CHF 13,975 to CHF 7,725 in case 24-20.

What the court decided

Comlot placed the three operators' domains on its blocking list by general order of 8 October 2019 (BBl 2019 6627) and confirmed the blocks on objection on 7 May 2020. The Interkantonales Geldspielgericht dismissed the operators' appeals on 15 February 2021 (23-20, 24-20 and 25-20).

On 18 May 2022 the Bundesgericht dismissed the further appeals "soweit darauf einzutreten ist" (to the extent they were admissible). The three are separate judgments and are not formally joined. The court held three points:

• the games are Geldspiele;
• foreign operators without a Swiss licence cannot rely on economic freedom, given the lack of effective Swiss supervision;
• DNS blocking is proportionate even though it can be circumvented, because the legislature accepted partial effectiveness.

As of 14 November 2026 the judgments of 18 May 2022 are the last step in the record.

Why it matters

The judgments confirm that Swiss network blocking of unlicensed foreign gambling sites survives a proportionality challenge. They also set out why a foreign operator without a Swiss licence cannot invoke economic freedom.

The case is the lottery and sports-betting companion to the line of blocking cases against the federal casino regulator (ESBK). See regulators and attorneys general in court for the wider set of enforcement cases.

Questions people ask

Did the Swiss Federal Supreme Court uphold the DNS blocks?

Yes. On 18 May 2022 the Bundesgericht dismissed the Maltese operators' appeals in 2C_336/2021, 2C_337/2021 and 2C_338/2021, to the extent they were admissible.

Is DNS blocking proportionate if it can be circumvented?

The court said yes. It held the blocks proportionate even though they can be circumvented, because the legislature accepted that blocking would only be partly effective.

Who is Gespa?

Gespa is the Interkantonale Geldspielaufsicht, the intercantonal lottery and betting supervisor, formerly called Comlot. It issued the blocking order of 8 October 2019 that led to these appeals.

Related cases

• Maltese operator v ESBK: the companion line on the federal casino regulator's blocking list (GL-CH-0005).
• French NFT card game operator v Gespa: a later Gespa blocking case, 2C_62/2025 (GL-CH-0011).