{"title":"GamblingLawsuits.org case records","license":"CC BY 4.0, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/","attribution":"GamblingLawsuits.org","built":"2026-11-15","records_as_of":"2026-11-14","count":207,"cases":[{"id":"GL-AT-0510","slug":"ogh-wetteinsatzlimit-kombiwetten-nichtig-2022","title":"OGH, Urteil vom 27.09.2022, 2 Ob 138/22s (absolute Nichtigkeit von Wettverträgen bei Überschreiten des Wetteinsatzlimits)","short_name":"Bets above stake limit void (OGH 2022)","aliases":["2 ob 138/22s","wetteinsatzlimit 500 euro oberösterreich nichtig","kombiwetten terminals gewinn zurückzahlen"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"AT","state":"O","court":"Oberster Gerichtshof, 2. Senat","level":"supreme"},"docket":"2 Ob 138/22s (LG Linz 38 Cg 60/21t; OLG Linz 1 R 173/21y)","filed":"2021","category":"sportsbook","case_type":"individual","parties":{"plaintiffs":"bettor who split six near-identical combination bets of 400 EUR across terminals on 15.12.2019","defendants":["bookmaker licensed in Upper Austria (Buchmacherin)"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":""},"claims":["§ 9 Z 4 Oö. Wettgesetz (500 EUR Einsatzlimit)","§ 879 ABGB Nichtigkeit"],"status":"dismissed","status_date":"2022-09-27","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":"23,577.42 EUR claimed (winnings of 25,977.42 EUR on six 400 EUR bets of 15.12.2019 less 2,400 EUR refunded stakes); dismissed; earlier winnings repayable"},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://www.ogh.gv.at/entscheidungen/entscheidungen-ogh/absolute-nichtigkeit-von-wettvertraegen-bei-ueberschreiten-des-wetteinsatzlimits","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":[],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"The stake limit of the Upper Austrian betting act applies to the single economic bet even if split into several contracts; bets above the limit are absolutely void, the player cannot claim winnings and must repay winnings already paid. Player-versus-bookmaker case outside the refund line.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-AT-0511"],"sources":[{"claim":"date, case number, facts, holding (OGH website)","url":"https://www.ogh.gv.at/entscheidungen/entscheidungen-ogh/absolute-nichtigkeit-von-wettvertraegen-bei-ueberschreiten-des-wetteinsatzlimits","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"2 Ob 138/22s, 27.09.2022: LG Linz 38 Cg 60/21t (18.10.2021), OLG Linz 1 R 173/21y (04.05.2022); 23,577.42 EUR claimed (winnings 25,977.42 EUR less 2,400 EUR refunded stakes); § 9 Z 4 Ooe Wettgesetz cap 500 EUR per bet; revision dismissed","url":"https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/Justiz/JJT_20220927_OGH0002_0020OB00138_22S0000_000/JJT_20220927_OGH0002_0020OB00138_22S0000_000.html","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"open":[],"status_read_from_records":true,"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/sportsbook/ogh-wetteinsatzlimit-kombiwetten-nichtig-2022/"},{"id":"GL-AT-0602","slug":"ogh-1-ob-176-22x-steiermark-online-sportwetten","title":"OGH, Urteil vom 27.01.2023, 1 Ob 176/22x (Steiermärkisches Wettengesetz erfasst keine Online-Sportwetten eines maltesischen Anbieters; Wettverträge wirksam, keine Rückforderung)","short_name":"OGH Styria online sports betting refund claim (2023)","aliases":["1 ob 176/22x","steiermärkisches wettengesetz online sportwetten ogh","sportwetten geld zurück österreich ogh 2023","malta wettanbieter österreich klage abgewiesen","ogh sportwetten landeskompetenz art 15 b-vg"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"AT","state":"Steiermark","court":"Oberster Gerichtshof, 1. Senat (Revision from the Oberlandesgericht Graz, 2 R 118/22y)","level":"supreme"},"docket":"1 Ob 176/22x (OLG Graz 2 R 118/22y-56, 02.09.2022; LG für ZRS Graz 22 Cg 84/21h-47, 24.05.2022)","filed":"2021","category":"refund-claims","case_type":"individual","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Player with habitual residence in Styria (G*) claiming EUR 48,259.25 plus interest lost on live sports bets between 24 October 2019 and 21 April 2020","defendants":["I* Ltd (Malta; Maltese gambling licence, no Austrian licence; live sports betting website)"],"class_counsel":["Dr. Peter Ozlberger (for the plaintiff)"],"defense_counsel":["Stadler Völkel Rechtsanwälte GmbH"],"judge":""},"claims":["Steiermärkisches Wettengesetz 2018 (§ 8 Abs 3 und Abs 6 StWttG)","§ 879 Abs 1 ABGB (Nichtigkeit)","Art 6 Rom I-VO","Art 15 Abs 1 B-VG (Landeskompetenz für Sportwetten)","vertragliche Schutzpflichten gegenüber Spielsüchtigen","Geschäftsunfähigkeit (nicht aufrechterhalten)"],"status":"dismissed","status_date":"2023-01-27","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":"claim of EUR 48,259.25 dismissed; costs of EUR 1,858.35 awarded to the defendant"},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/Justiz/JJT_20230127_OGH0002_0010OB00176_22X0000_000/JJT_20230127_OGH0002_0010OB00176_22X0000_000.html"],"regulator":"","press":["https://www.imgl.org/publications/imgl-magazine-volume-3-no-1/lootboxes-betting-on-e-sports-and-player-claims-before-the-ecj-and-austrian-courts/"]},"summary":"The OGH's first ruling on the Styrian betting act and online sports betting, and the anchor of the Austrian line that keeps sports-betting losses outside the refund wave. A Styrian player lost EUR 48,259.25 on live bets with a Maltese operator without an Austrian licence. The OGH held that sports bets are not part of the federal gambling monopoly but a Länder matter (Art 15 B-VG); the Steiermärkisches Wettengesetz governs only betting conduct inside Styria, so online bets offered from abroad are not covered and there is no gap to fill by analogy; a breach of the act would not make the contracts void under § 879 Abs 1 ABGB; and contractual duties to protect addicted players arise only in extreme cases of known existential threat. The revision was dismissed on 27 January 2023 and the plaintiff ordered to pay EUR 1,858.35 in costs. 8 Ob 112/23p (Tyrol) and 9 Ob 76/25d (Vienna) follow it.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-AT-0603","GL-AT-0600","GL-AT-0511","GL-DE-0003","GL-EU-0002"],"sources":[{"claim":"Geschäftszahl 1 Ob 176/22x, 27.01.2023, ECLI:AT:OGH0002:2023:0010OB00176.22X.0127.000; LG für ZRS Graz 22 Cg 84/21h-47 (24.05.2022); OLG Graz 2 R 118/22y-56 (02.09.2022); Styrian resident v Maltese licensee; EUR 48,259.25 (24.10.2019-21.04.2020); holdings on StWttG territoriality, no analogy, § 879 ABGB, Art 15 B-VG, protective duties; revision dismissed; costs EUR 1,858.35","url":"https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/Justiz/JJT_20230127_OGH0002_0010OB00176_22X0000_000/JJT_20230127_OGH0002_0010OB00176_22X0000_000.html","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"IMGL (27 March 2026): 27.01.2023 cited as case law on online betting offered from outside the Land","url":"https://www.imgl.org/publications/imgl-magazine-volume-3-no-1/lootboxes-betting-on-e-sports-and-player-claims-before-the-ecj-and-austrian-courts/","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"}],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/refund-claims/ogh-1-ob-176-22x-steiermark-online-sportwetten/"},{"id":"GL-AT-0501","slug":"vfgh-gluecksspielmonopol-e-945-2016","title":"VfGH, Erkenntnis vom 15.10.2016, E 945/2016 u.a. (Glücksspielmonopol weder unionsrechts- noch verfassungswidrig)","short_name":"Constitutional Court upholds monopoly (VfGH 2016)","aliases":["e 945/2016","vfgh glücksspielmonopol 2016","inländerdiskriminierung glücksspiel"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"AT","state":"","court":"Verfassungsgerichtshof","level":"supreme"},"docket":"E 945/2016, E 947/2016, E 1054/2016; G 103/2016 ua (OGH applications rejected)","filed":"2016","category":"licensing-administrative","case_type":"constitutional","parties":{"plaintiffs":"gaming machine operators (Beschwerden) and the OGH (Gesetzesprüfungsantrag 4 Ob 31/16m)","defendants":["Republik Österreich (Glücksspielgesetz)"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":""},"claims":["Art. 7 B-VG Gleichheitssatz (Inländerdiskriminierung)","Art. 6 StGG Erwerbsfreiheit","Art. 56 AEUV"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2016-10-15","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://gesetzefinden.at/judikatur/vfgh/jfr_20161015_16e00945_01","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://www.vfgh.gv.at/downloads/Presseinformation_vom_28.10.2016.pdf"],"regulator":"","press":["https://webiis10.mondaq.com/austria/cartels-monopolies/560990/constitutional-court-rules-that-gambling-monopoly-does-not-infringe-upon-eu-law"]},"summary":"On the OGH's request (which had argued that Casinos Austria and Österreichische Lotterien advertised so aggressively that the monopoly became incoherent) and operators' complaints, the VfGH held that the Glücksspielgesetz monopoly is neither contrary to EU law nor an unconstitutional discrimination of domestic operators. The OGH then dropped its doubts on 22.11.2016.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-AT-0500","GL-AT-0502","GL-AT-0507"],"sources":[{"claim":"date, case numbers, holding","url":"https://www.bmf.gv.at/themen/gluecksspiel-spielerschutz/gesetzliche-grundlagen-gluecksspiel/kohaerenz-gluecksspielmonopol.html","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"OGH referral background","url":"https://webiis10.mondaq.com/austria/cartels-monopolies/560990/constitutional-court-rules-that-gambling-monopoly-does-not-infringe-upon-eu-law","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"E 945/2016, E 947/2016, E 1054/2016, Erkenntnis 15.10.2016: §§ 52-54 GSpG not contrary to EU law; complaints dismissed","url":"https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/Vfgh/JFT_20161015_16E00945_00/JFT_20161015_16E00945_00.html","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"Presseinformation 28.10.2016: VfGH 15.10.2016, E 945/2016 ua; the OGH's applications G 103/2016 ua rejected on formal grounds","url":"https://www.vfgh.gv.at/downloads/Presseinformation_vom_28.10.2016.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary","note":"read with pdftotext"}],"open":[],"status_read_from_records":true,"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/licensing-administrative/vfgh-gluecksspielmonopol-e-945-2016/"},{"id":"GL-AT-0500","slug":"vwgh-gluecksspielmonopol-kohaerenz-2016","title":"VwGH, Erkenntnis vom 16.03.2016, Ro 2015/17/0022 (Unionsrechtskonformität des Glücksspielmonopols)","short_name":"Austrian monopoly coherent (VwGH 2016)","aliases":["ro 2015/17/0022","glücksspielmonopol unionsrechtskonform vwgh","gesamtwürdigung glücksspielgesetz"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"AT","state":"","court":"Verwaltungsgerichtshof","level":"supreme"},"docket":"Ro 2015/17/0022 (LVwG Oberoesterreich LVwG-410287/42/Gf/Mu)","filed":"2015","category":"licensing-administrative","case_type":"operator-v-regulator","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Bundesminister fuer Finanzen (Amtsrevision) against an operator fined under § 52 GSpG for two gaming machines, whose penalty the LVwG Oberoesterreich had annulled as contrary to Art. 56 TFEU","defendants":["Landesverwaltungsgericht / Bezirksverwaltungsbehörde (Verwaltungsstrafverfahren)"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":""},"claims":["§ 52 GSpG Verwaltungsstrafe","Art. 56 AEUV","Kohärenzgebot (Pfleger-Kriterien)"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2016-03-16","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://gesetzefinden.at/judikatur/vwgh/jwt_2015170022_20160316j00","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":[],"regulator":"https://www.bmf.gv.at/themen/gluecksspiel-spielerschutz/gesetzliche-grundlagen-gluecksspiel/kohaerenz-gluecksspielmonopol.html","press":[]},"summary":"Applying the CJEU's Pfleger test, the Administrative Court carried out the required overall assessment of the Austrian gambling monopoly and found it compatible with free movement of services; all later VwGH penalty cases (for example Ra 2020/17/0045, 2023) rely on this assessment. Together with VfGH E 945/2016 and OGH 4 Ob 31/16m it closed the 2014-2016 wave of EU-law challenges by machine operators.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-AT-0501","GL-AT-0502","GL-EU-0101","GL-EU-0103"],"sources":[{"claim":"date, case number, holding","url":"https://www.bmf.gv.at/themen/gluecksspiel-spielerschutz/gesetzliche-grundlagen-gluecksspiel/kohaerenz-gluecksspielmonopol.html","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"RIS record","url":"https://gesetzefinden.at/judikatur/vwgh/jwt_2015170022_20160316j00","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary","note":"copy of the court text or official metadata on a mirror/database; official server not machine-readable or not addressable by case number at verification"},{"claim":"Ro 2015/17/0022, 16.03.2016: Amtsrevision of the Bundesminister fuer Finanzen against LVwG Oberoesterreich 29.05.2015, LVwG-410287/42/Gf/Mu; penalty for two machines reinstated at 500 EUR each","url":"https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/Vwgh/JWT_2015170022_20160316J00/JWT_2015170022_20160316J00.html","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"open":[],"status_read_from_records":true,"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/licensing-administrative/vwgh-gluecksspielmonopol-kohaerenz-2016/"},{"id":"GL-AT-0511","slug":"ogh-goldbet-wettgewinn-464000-2016","title":"OGH, Urteil vom 30.05.2016, 6 Ob 45/16k (Goldbet, Innsbruck: einseitiger Wett-Ruecktritt bei Mehrfachwetten groeblich benachteiligend, 464,806.96 EUR zugesprochen)","short_name":"Goldbet must pay EUR 464,806 winnings (OGH 2016)","aliases":["goldbet urteil ogh 464.000","wettgewinn nicht ausgezahlt ogh","wett rücktritt agb gröblich benachteiligend"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"AT","state":"T","court":"Oberster Gerichtshof (after LG Innsbruck and OLG Innsbruck)","level":"supreme"},"docket":"6 Ob 45/16k (LG Innsbruck 8 Cg 143/14a; OLG Innsbruck 4 R 184/15p)","filed":"2014","category":"sportsbook","case_type":"individual","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Italian bettor (a police officer per the OGH text) who placed seven identical multi-bets on 09.09.2014","defendants":["Goldbet (online betting operator, Innsbruck)"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":""},"claims":["§ 879 Abs. 3 ABGB (gröbliche Benachteiligung)","§ 6 KSchG","Punkt 15 der Goldbet-AGB (max. drei identische Wetten pro Spiel)"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2016-05-30","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"464,806 EUR awarded (half of a 988,000 EUR account balance)","fine_or_damages":"464,806.96 EUR plus 11.6 % interest from 22.09.2014 awarded (four of seven identical multi-bets of 09.09.2014 at 116,201.74 EUR each)"},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":[],"regulator":"","press":["https://www.tt.com/artikel/11807308/einseitiger-wett-ruecktritt-von-onlineanbieter-laut-ogh-nicht-zulaessig"]},"summary":"A 33 EUR stake grew through multiple bets into a 988,000 EUR account; Goldbet paid only half, citing its three-identical-bets clause which its own systems had not enforced. The LG Innsbruck awarded the withheld 464,806 EUR, the OLG Innsbruck reversed, and the OGH restored the award: a one-sided right to cancel bets after the event while keeping losing stakes is grossly disadvantageous. The main Austrian withheld-winnings precedent.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-AT-0510"],"sources":[{"claim":"facts, amounts, instance chain, holding (APA report 26.07.2016)","url":"https://www.tt.com/artikel/11807308/einseitiger-wett-ruecktritt-von-onlineanbieter-laut-ogh-nicht-zulaessig","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"6 Ob 45/16k, 30.05.2016: plaintiff (a police officer) v G***** GmbH, sports-betting portal, bets accepted in Innsbruck; LG Innsbruck 8 Cg 143/14a (01.10.2015), OLG Innsbruck 4 R 184/15p (12.01.2016); 464,806.96 EUR plus interest awarded; clause 15 (max. three identical bets) void under § 879 Abs 3 ABGB","url":"https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/Justiz/JJT_20160530_OGH0002_0060OB00045_16K0000_000/JJT_20160530_OGH0002_0060OB00045_16K0000_000.html","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"open":[],"status_read_from_records":true,"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/sportsbook/ogh-goldbet-wettgewinn-464000-2016/"},{"id":"GL-AT-0506","slug":"vwgh-admiral-automatenbewilligung-niederoesterreich-2016","title":"VwGH, Erkenntnis vom 11.05.2016, 2013/02/0094 (Bewilligung für Glücksspielautomaten in Niederösterreich, Novomatic/Admiral)","short_name":"Lower Austria slot licence annulled (VwGH 2016)","aliases":["2013/02/0094","novomatic automatenlizenz niederösterreich aufgehoben"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"AT","state":"N","court":"Verwaltungsgerichtshof","level":"supreme"},"docket":"2013/02/0094","filed":"2013","category":"licensing-administrative","case_type":"operator-v-regulator","parties":{"plaintiffs":"competing applicants for the Lower Austria machine licence","defendants":["Niederösterreichische Landesregierung","Admiral/Novomatic (licence holder)"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":""},"claims":["NÖ Spielautomatengesetz","Akteneinsicht / Parteiengehör"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2016-05-11","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":[],"regulator":"","press":["https://www.tt.com/artikel/11580049/vwgh-kippte-gluecksspiellizenz-fuer-novomatic-in-noe"]},"summary":"The VwGH set aside the award of the Lower Austrian machine-gambling licence to Novomatic's Admiral because competitors were denied access to the file before the decision. Admiral kept operating 1,339 machines under the 18-month run-off rule and a new permit of 26.09.2016; the LG St. Pölten treated the annulment as irrelevant in Novomatic's UWG suits.","significance":"routine","related_cases":["GL-AT-0504","GL-AT-0507"],"sources":[{"claim":"date, case number, reasoning","url":"https://www.tt.com/artikel/11580049/vwgh-kippte-gluecksspiellizenz-fuer-novomatic-in-noe","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"follow-up permit and machine count","url":"https://www.tt.com/artikel/12314196/novomatic-klagt-illegale-konkurrenten-gerichte-gaben-konzern-recht","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"2013/02/0094, 11.05.2016: complaint of M AG against the NOe Landesregierung decision of 08.03.2012 granting A AG (Gumpoldskirchen) permits for 1,339 machines for 15 years; decision annulled for refusal of file access (transparency)","url":"https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/Vwgh/JWT_2013020094_20160511X00/JWT_2013020094_20160511X00.html","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"open":[],"status_read_from_records":true,"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/licensing-administrative/vwgh-admiral-automatenbewilligung-niederoesterreich-2016/"},{"id":"GL-AT-0001","slug":"ogh-3-ob-72-21s-bwin-electraworks","title":"OGH 3 Ob 72/21s (20.05.2021) – ElectraWorks Ltd (bwin), EUR 73.536","short_name":"OGH bwin-Entscheidung 3 Ob 72/21s","aliases":["ogh bwin urteil 2021","3 ob 72/21s","ogh online glücksspiel rückforderung 2021"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"AT","state":"","court":"Oberster Gerichtshof","level":"supreme"},"docket":"3 Ob 72/21s","filed":"","category":"refund-claims","case_type":"appeal","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Austrian player","defendants":["ElectraWorks Ltd (bwin.at), Gibraltar"],"class_counsel":["Dr. Sven Rudolf Thorstensen (AdvoFin-financed)"],"defense_counsel":["Brandl Talos Rechtsanwälte GmbH"],"judge":""},"claims":["§ 879 Abs. 1 ABGB i.V.m. §§ 3, 12a, 14 GSpG (Nichtigkeit)","§ 877 ABGB analog / § 1431 ABGB (Rückforderung)","Schadenersatz, GSpG als Schutzgesetz"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2021-05-20","money":{"fund":"","currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":"","payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":"73536"},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/Justiz/JJT_20210520_OGH0002_0030OB00072_21S0000_000/JJT_20210520_OGH0002_0030OB00072_21S0000_000.html","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/Justiz/JJT_20210520_OGH0002_0030OB00072_21S0000_000/JJT_20210520_OGH0002_0030OB00072_21S0000_000.html"],"regulator":"","press":["https://www.advofin.at/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Kurier_OGH_202106.pdf","https://orf.at/stories/3218810/"]},"summary":"A woman from Burgenland lost EUR 73,536 on bwin.at over six years. LG and OLG Wien (31.03.2021, 11 R 39/21t) granted; the OGH rejected the extraordinary Revision: online lotteries fall under the § 12a GSpG concession system, the Austrian monopoly is EU-compliant as a whole (CJEU Stoß, Carmen Media, Pfleger, Dickinger, Admiral, Berlington; VfGH E 945/2016; VwGH), no referral needed, stakes from unlawful gambling are recoverable. Triggered the Austrian claims wave, bet-at-home's casino exit and operator provisions.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":[],"sources":[{"claim":"full text: date, parties, amount, holdings; RIS full text: 20.05.2021, EUR 73,536 sA, OLG Wien 31.03.2021, 11 R 39/21t; außerordentliche Revision zurückgewiesen; EU law; referral refused","url":"https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/Justiz/JJT_20210520_OGH0002_0030OB00072_21S0000_000/JJT_20210520_OGH0002_0030OB00072_21S0000_000.html","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"press report, AdvoFin figures","url":"https://www.advofin.at/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Kurier_OGH_202106.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"}],"open":[],"status_read_from_records":true,"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/refund-claims/ogh-3-ob-72-21s-bwin-electraworks/"},{"id":"GL-AT-0002","slug":"ogh-6-ob-229-21a-online-poker","title":"OGH 6 Ob 229/21a (02.02.2022) – Online-Poker, Leitentscheidung zu Nichtigkeit und Rückforderung","short_name":"OGH 6 Ob 229/21a","aliases":["6 ob 229/21a","ogh pokerstars urteil","ogh online poker rückforderung"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"AT","state":"","court":"Oberster Gerichtshof","level":"supreme"},"docket":"6 Ob 229/21a","filed":"","category":"refund-claims","case_type":"appeal","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Austrian player","defendants":["T* Limited (Malta), online poker and casino via p*.eu (PokerStars operator per press)"],"class_counsel":["Dr. Sven Rudolf Thorstensen"],"defense_counsel":["Brandl Talos Rechtsanwälte GmbH"],"judge":""},"claims":["§ 879 Abs. 1 ABGB i.V.m. §§ 3, 12a, 14 GSpG (Nichtigkeit)","§ 877 ABGB analog / § 1431 ABGB (Rückforderung)","Schadenersatz, GSpG als Schutzgesetz"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2022-02-02","money":{"fund":"","currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":"","payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":"16879.28"},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/Justiz/JJT_20220202_OGH0002_0060OB00229_21A0000_000/JJT_20220202_OGH0002_0060OB00229_21A0000_000.html","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/Justiz/JJT_20220202_OGH0002_0060OB00229_21A0000_000/JJT_20220202_OGH0002_0060OB00229_21A0000_000.html"],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"Net poker losses 10.02.2007-01.07.2019 of EUR 16,879.28. LG ZRS Wien (06.07.2021, 8 Cg 50/20m) and OLG Wien (13.10.2021, 15 R 121/21f) granted; the OGH dismissed the Revision: the pre-2011 seat requirement was EU-incompatible but severable; Placanica does not transfer to civil nullity; the operator is the recipient of stakes even for poker rake; the contract is void under § 879 Abs. 1 ABGB; restitution by analogy to § 877 ABGB regardless of the player's knowledge because the GSpG protects players; parallel tort claim with reversed burden on hypothetical losses. Standard citation for the Austrian line.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":[],"sources":[{"claim":"full text; RIS full text: 02.02.2022, EUR 16,879.28, poker 10.02.2007-01.07.2019, LG ZRS Wien 06.07.2021, 8 Cg 50/20m; OLG Wien 13.10.2021, 15 R 121/21f; Revision nicht Folge gegeben","url":"https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/Justiz/JJT_20220202_OGH0002_0060OB00229_21A0000_000/JJT_20220202_OGH0002_0060OB00229_21A0000_000.html","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"open":[],"status_read_from_records":true,"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/refund-claims/ogh-6-ob-229-21a-online-poker/"},{"id":"GL-AT-0003","slug":"ogh-9-ob-79-21i-online-poker-salzburg","title":"OGH 9 Ob 79/21i (17.02.2022) – Online-Poker 2013-2020, EUR 24.872,77","short_name":"OGH 9 Ob 79/21i","aliases":["9 ob 79/21i"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"AT","state":"","court":"Oberster Gerichtshof","level":"supreme"},"docket":"9 Ob 79/21i","filed":"","category":"refund-claims","case_type":"appeal","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Austrian player","defendants":["T* Limited (Malta)"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":""},"claims":["§ 879 Abs. 1 ABGB i.V.m. §§ 3, 12a, 14 GSpG (Nichtigkeit)","§ 877 ABGB analog / § 1431 ABGB (Rückforderung)","Schadenersatz, GSpG als Schutzgesetz"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2022-02-17","money":{"fund":"","currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":"","payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":"24872.77"},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/Justiz/JJT_20220217_OGH0002_0090OB00079_21I0000_000/JJT_20220217_OGH0002_0090OB00079_21I0000_000.html","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/Justiz/JJT_20220217_OGH0002_0090OB00079_21I0000_000/JJT_20220217_OGH0002_0090OB00079_21I0000_000.html"],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"LG Salzburg (18.05.2021, 2 Cg 67/20g) and OLG Linz (26.08.2021, 3 R 93/21y) granted; the OGH dismissed the Revision, repeating 6 Ob 229/21a: offering online poker without concession is prohibited even if the operator only earns rake, contracts void, restitution despite knowledge, operator passively legitimised, monopoly EU-compliant, tort claim with the operator bearing the burden that the player would have lost the same with a licensed provider.","significance":"routine","related_cases":[],"sources":[{"claim":"full text; RIS full text: 17.02.2022, Streitwert EUR 24,872.77 (losses EUR 24,050.23 and USD 940), play 01.01.2013-01.09.2020, LG Salzburg 18.05.2021, 2 Cg 67/20g; OLG Linz 26.08.2021, 3 R 93/21y","url":"https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/Justiz/JJT_20220217_OGH0002_0090OB00079_21I0000_000/JJT_20220217_OGH0002_0090OB00079_21I0000_000.html","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"open":[],"status_read_from_records":true,"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/refund-claims/ogh-9-ob-79-21i-online-poker-salzburg/"},{"id":"GL-AT-0006","slug":"ogh-7-ob-155-23d-auslandsspiel-territorial","title":"OGH 7 Ob 155/23d (11.12.2023) – EUR 615.996,18, GSpG gilt nicht für Spiel aus dem Ausland","short_name":"OGH 7 Ob 155/23d","aliases":["7 ob 155/23d","ogh 615.996 euro glücksspiel","glücksspiel ausland rückforderung österreich"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"AT","state":"","court":"Oberster Gerichtshof","level":"supreme"},"docket":"7 Ob 155/23d","filed":"","category":"refund-claims","case_type":"appeal","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Austrian player","defendants":["T* Limited (Malta)"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":""},"claims":["§ 879 Abs. 1 ABGB i.V.m. §§ 3, 12a, 14 GSpG (Nichtigkeit)","§ 877 ABGB analog / § 1431 ABGB (Rückforderung)","Schadenersatz, GSpG als Schutzgesetz"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2023-12-11","money":{"fund":"","currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":"","payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":"615996.18"},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/Justiz/JJT_20231211_OGH0002_0070OB00155_23D0000_000/JJT_20231211_OGH0002_0070OB00155_23D0000_000.html","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/Justiz/JJT_20231211_OGH0002_0070OB00155_23D0000_000/JJT_20231211_OGH0002_0070OB00155_23D0000_000.html"],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"Play 2013-2022; LG ZRS Wien (12.04.2023, 62 Cg 69/22f) and OLG Wien (29.06.2023, 11 R 131/23z) granted. The OGH set aside EUR 46,170.33 relating to games played from Croatia, Slovenia, Slovakia and Kosovo: the GSpG is territorially limited and does not void contracts for play from abroad; the player must plead a foreign prohibition; remanded. EUR 516,262.71 remained final. Austrian counterpart to the German place-of-play dispute (BGH I ZR 78/25).","significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-DE-0005"],"sources":[{"claim":"full text; RIS full text: 11.12.2023; EUR 615,996.18; EUR 46,170.33 remanded (Croatia, Slovenia, Slovakia, Kosovo); EUR 516,262.71 final; play 24.03.2013-06.04.2022; LG ZRS Wien 12.04.2023, 62 Cg 69/22f; OLG Wien 29.06.2023, 11 R 131/23z","url":"https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/Justiz/JJT_20231211_OGH0002_0070OB00155_23D0000_000/JJT_20231211_OGH0002_0070OB00155_23D0000_000.html","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"open":[],"status_read_from_records":true,"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/refund-claims/ogh-7-ob-155-23d-auslandsspiel-territorial/"},{"id":"GL-AT-0007","slug":"ogh-10-ob-8-24k-einzahlungen-firmenkonto","title":"OGH 10 Ob 8/24k (14.05.2024) – Einzahlungen vom Firmenkonto sind Einsätze des Spielers","short_name":"OGH 10 Ob 8/24k","aliases":["10 ob 8/24k"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"AT","state":"","court":"Oberster Gerichtshof","level":"supreme"},"docket":"10 Ob 8/24k","filed":"","category":"refund-claims","case_type":"appeal","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Austrian player","defendants":["L* plc (Malta)"],"class_counsel":["Gottgeisl Leinsmer Weber Rechtsanwälte GmbH"],"defense_counsel":["Brandl Talos Rechtsanwälte GmbH"],"judge":""},"claims":["§ 879 Abs. 1 ABGB i.V.m. §§ 3, 12a, 14 GSpG (Nichtigkeit)","§ 877 ABGB analog / § 1431 ABGB (Rückforderung)","Schadenersatz, GSpG als Schutzgesetz"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2024-05-14","money":{"fund":"","currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":"","payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":"14185"},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/Justiz/JJT_20240514_OGH0002_0100OB00008_24K0000_000/JJT_20240514_OGH0002_0100OB00008_24K0000_000.html","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/Justiz/JJT_20240514_OGH0002_0100OB00008_24K0000_000/JJT_20240514_OGH0002_0100OB00008_24K0000_000.html"],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"Deposits EUR 51,635 minus withdrawals EUR 37,450; only EUR 675 provably from the player's own account, the rest possibly from his KG. BG Telfs (07.07.2023, 2 C 181/23h) awarded EUR 675; LG Innsbruck (24.11.2023, 3 R 238/23f) the full amount; the OGH rejected the Revision: restitution runs between the parties of the apparent relationship, deposits to the registered player account are his stakes regardless of who bore the economic burden.","significance":"routine","related_cases":[],"sources":[{"claim":"full text; RIS full text: 14.05.2024; EUR 14,185; BG Telfs 07.07.2023, 2 C 181/23h (only EUR 675); LG Innsbruck 24.11.2023, 3 R 238/23f (full); Revision zurückgewiesen","url":"https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/Justiz/JJT_20240514_OGH0002_0100OB00008_24K0000_000/JJT_20240514_OGH0002_0100OB00008_24K0000_000.html","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"open":[],"status_read_from_records":true,"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/refund-claims/ogh-10-ob-8-24k-einzahlungen-firmenkonto/"},{"id":"GL-AT-0008","slug":"ogh-2-ob-198-24t-keine-aussetzung-c-683-24","title":"OGH 2 Ob 198/24t (12.12.2024) – keine Unterbrechung wegen C-683/24 oder C-440/23","short_name":"OGH 2 Ob 198/24t","aliases":["2 ob 198/24t","ogh aussetzung eugh glücksspiel abgelehnt"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"AT","state":"","court":"Oberster Gerichtshof","level":"supreme"},"docket":"2 Ob 198/24t","filed":"","category":"refund-claims","case_type":"appeal","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Austrian player","defendants":["N* (Malta)"],"class_counsel":["Dr. Oliver Peschel"],"defense_counsel":["Mag. Simon Wallner Rechtsanwalt GmbH"],"judge":""},"claims":["§ 879 Abs. 1 ABGB i.V.m. §§ 3, 12a, 14 GSpG (Nichtigkeit)","§ 877 ABGB analog / § 1431 ABGB (Rückforderung)","Schadenersatz, GSpG als Schutzgesetz"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2024-12-12","money":{"fund":"","currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":"","payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":"45027.25"},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/Justiz/JJT_20241212_OGH0002_0020OB00198_24T0000_000/JJT_20241212_OGH0002_0020OB00198_24T0000_000.html","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/Justiz/JJT_20241212_OGH0002_0020OB00198_24T0000_000/JJT_20241212_OGH0002_0020OB00198_24T0000_000.html"],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"Losses March-November 2020; OLG Graz (17.10.2024, 2 R 158/24h) granted. The OGH refused to stay for C-683/24 (concerns recognition in Malta, not the claim) or C-440/23 (questions settled or Germany-specific), held § 1174 ABGB no bar because stakes are paid to take part, good faith irrelevant, the concession system including advertising EU-compliant, Fluctus no obstacle to following national high courts; extraordinary Revision rejected.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-EU-0003","GL-EU-0001"],"sources":[{"claim":"full text; RIS full text: 12.12.2024; EUR 45,027.25; March-November 2020; OLG Graz 17.10.2024, 2 R 158/24h; stay for C-683/24 refused, C-440/23 largely answered; § 1174 ABGB; good faith irrelevant","url":"https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/Justiz/JJT_20241212_OGH0002_0020OB00198_24T0000_000/JJT_20241212_OGH0002_0020OB00198_24T0000_000.html","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"open":[],"status_read_from_records":true,"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/refund-claims/ogh-2-ob-198-24t-keine-aussetzung-c-683-24/"},{"id":"GL-AT-0009","slug":"ogh-7-ob-16-25s-malta-vollstreckung-irrelevant","title":"OGH 7 Ob 16/25s (19.02.2025) – Nichtvollstreckung in Malta macht die Klage nicht aussichtslos","short_name":"OGH 7 Ob 16/25s","aliases":["7 ob 16/25s"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"AT","state":"","court":"Oberster Gerichtshof","level":"supreme"},"docket":"7 Ob 16/25s","filed":"","category":"refund-claims","case_type":"appeal","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Austrian player","defendants":["N* Ltd (Malta)"],"class_counsel":["Gottgeisl Leinsmer Weber Rechtsanwälte GmbH"],"defense_counsel":["Mag. Simon Wallner Rechtsanwalt GmbH"],"judge":""},"claims":["§ 879 Abs. 1 ABGB i.V.m. §§ 3, 12a, 14 GSpG (Nichtigkeit)","§ 877 ABGB analog / § 1431 ABGB (Rückforderung)","Schadenersatz, GSpG als Schutzgesetz"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2025-02-19","money":{"fund":"","currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":"","payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":"59530"},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/Justiz/JJT_20250219_OGH0002_0070OB00016_25S0000_000/JJT_20250219_OGH0002_0070OB00016_25S0000_000.html","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/Justiz/JJT_20250219_OGH0002_0070OB00016_25S0000_000/JJT_20250219_OGH0002_0070OB00016_25S0000_000.html"],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"Losses August 2022 to April 2023; OLG Wien (17.12.2024, 14 R 134/24i) granted. The OGH rejected the Revision and the stay request: Malta's current refusal to enforce does not make the action hopeless; § 1174 Abs. 1 ABGB does not bar recovery; purpose of the ban requires restitution even where the player knew; monopoly EU-compliant; no referral.","significance":"routine","related_cases":["GL-EU-0003"],"sources":[{"claim":"full text; RIS full text: 19.02.2025; EUR 59,530; Aug 2022-Apr 2023; OLG Wien 17.12.2024, 14 R 134/24i; stay refused; Malta non-enforcement does not make the action hopeless","url":"https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/Justiz/JJT_20250219_OGH0002_0070OB00016_25S0000_000/JJT_20250219_OGH0002_0070OB00016_25S0000_000.html","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"open":[],"status_read_from_records":true,"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/refund-claims/ogh-7-ob-16-25s-malta-vollstreckung-irrelevant/"},{"id":"GL-AT-0010","slug":"ogh-6-ob-33-25h-maltesischer-ordre-public","title":"OGH 6 Ob 33/25h (26.03.2025) – maltesischer ordre public kein Einwand","short_name":"OGH 6 Ob 33/25h","aliases":["6 ob 33/25h"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"AT","state":"","court":"Oberster Gerichtshof","level":"supreme"},"docket":"6 Ob 33/25h","filed":"","category":"refund-claims","case_type":"appeal","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Austrian player","defendants":["R* Ltd (Malta)"],"class_counsel":["Gottgeisl Leinsmer Weber Rechtsanwälte GmbH"],"defense_counsel":["Dr. Christian Rapani"],"judge":""},"claims":["§ 879 Abs. 1 ABGB i.V.m. §§ 3, 12a, 14 GSpG (Nichtigkeit)","§ 877 ABGB analog / § 1431 ABGB (Rückforderung)","Schadenersatz, GSpG als Schutzgesetz"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2025-03-26","money":{"fund":"","currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":"","payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":"31127"},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/Justiz/JJT_20250326_OGH0002_0060OB00033_25H0000_000/JJT_20250326_OGH0002_0060OB00033_25H0000_000.html","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/Justiz/JJT_20250326_OGH0002_0060OB00033_25H0000_000/JJT_20250326_OGH0002_0060OB00033_25H0000_000.html"],"regulator":"","press":["https://rechtsanwalt-wien.com/gluecksspielverluste-zurueckfordern-ogh-entscheidung-6-ob-33-25h/"]},"summary":"Losses 18.10.2020-23.11.2021 of EUR 31,127 (claim; total losses EUR 31,642.97); OLG Wien (20.01.2025, 2 R 151/24a) granted. The OGH rejected the extraordinary Revision: the concession system is EU-compliant as a whole (RS0130636), no findings needed on the monopolist's advertising rules or untendered casino concessions, and the argument that Austrian rules are inadmissible under Maltese ordre public fails.","significance":"routine","related_cases":[],"sources":[{"claim":"full text; RIS full text: 26.03.2025; claim EUR 31,127 sA (losses EUR 31,642.97); play 18.10.2020-23.11.2021; OLG Wien 20.01.2025, 2 R 151/24a; Maltese ordre public argument rejected","url":"https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/Justiz/JJT_20250326_OGH0002_0060OB00033_25H0000_000/JJT_20250326_OGH0002_0060OB00033_25H0000_000.html","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"amount and period","url":"https://rechtsanwalt-wien.com/gluecksspielverluste-zurueckfordern-ogh-entscheidung-6-ob-33-25h/","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"}],"open":[],"status_read_from_records":true,"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/refund-claims/ogh-6-ob-33-25h-maltesischer-ordre-public/"},{"id":"GL-AT-0011","slug":"ogh-3-nc-72-24d-ordination-vollstreckung-malta-banken","title":"OGH 3 Nc 72/24d (17.12.2024) und 3 Nc-Serie 2025 – Ordination für Forderungsexekution gegen maltesische Banken (Bill 55)","short_name":"OGH Ordination Malta-Vollstreckung (3 Nc 72/24d)","aliases":["3 nc 72/24d","ogh vollstreckung malta bill 55","forderungsexekution malta glücksspiel"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"AT","state":"","court":"Oberster Gerichtshof","level":"supreme"},"docket":"3 Nc 72/24d; 3 Nc 22/25b; 3 Nc 23/25z; 3 Nc 27/25p; 3 Nc 28/25k; 3 Nc 31/25a; 3 Nc 32/25y; 3 Nc 33/25w; 3 Nc 35/25i; 3 Nc 70/25m; 3 Nc 97/25g","filed":"","category":"refund-claims","case_type":"individual","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Austrian judgment creditors (players) against Maltese operators","defendants":["Maltese operators as debtors; Maltese banks as third-party debtors"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":""},"claims":["§ 28 Abs. 1 Z 2 JN (Ordination)","Forderungsexekution gegen Drittschuldner (maltesische Bank)","Art. 56A Maltese Gaming Act (Bill 55) as ground of unreasonableness"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2025-09-24","money":{"fund":"","currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":"","payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://gesetzefinden.at/judikatur/ogh/jjt_20250616_ogh0002_0030nc00022_25b0000_000","https://gesetzefinden.at/judikatur/ogh/jjt_20250924_ogh0002_0030nc00097_25g0000_000"],"regulator":"","press":["https://www.bindergroesswang.at/en/law-blog/2025/austrian-supreme-court-on-the-enforcement-of-gambling-claims-international-jurisdiction-of-austrian-courts-to-enforce-claims-against-third-parties-in-malta","https://www.kosmo.at/ogh-bestaetigt-rueckforderung-rechtens-malta-bleibt-jedoch-stur/"]},"summary":"Ordination decisions under § 28 JN. 3 Nc 72/24d of 17 December 2024 (ECLI:AT:OGH0002:2024:0030NC00072.24D.1217.001): a creditor with a final Austrian judgment for EUR 21,743.63 against C* Limited (Malta) sought to attach its account at Bank of Valletta p.l.c.; the OGH designated the Bezirksgericht Salzburg because enforcement in Malta is unreasonable: Maltese courts refuse to enforce Austrian gambling judgments under Act XXI/2023 (Cap. 583) and refuse to refer the question to the CJEU; 3 Nc 10/24m of 03.04.2024 had already granted Ordination (Bezirksgericht Salzburg, Rechteexekution for EUR 32,999.10) because enforcement in Malta is unreasonable, while other 2024 decisions (3 Nc 35/24p, 36/24k, 37/24g) denied Ordination for lack of a domestic connection. The 2025 series applies the route: 3 Nc 22/25b of 16.06.2025 (title EUR 574,148 against B* Ltd, Maltese financial service providers as third-party debtors, Bezirksgericht Döbling designated), 3 Nc 70/25m and 3 Nc 76/25v of 07.07.2025, 3 Nc 97/25g of 24.09.2025 and others.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-EU-0003","GL-EU-0004"],"sources":[{"claim":"3 Nc 22/25b 16.06.2025 holding","url":"https://gesetzefinden.at/judikatur/ogh/jjt_20250616_ogh0002_0030nc00022_25b0000_000","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"3 Nc 97/25g 24.09.2025","url":"https://gesetzefinden.at/judikatur/ogh/jjt_20250924_ogh0002_0030nc00097_25g0000_000","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"3 Nc 72/24d analysis and earlier contrary decisions","url":"https://www.bindergroesswang.at/en/law-blog/2025/austrian-supreme-court-on-the-enforcement-of-gambling-claims-international-jurisdiction-of-austrian-courts-to-enforce-claims-against-third-parties-in-malta","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"BG Salzburg EUR 27,000","url":"https://www.kosmo.at/ogh-bestaetigt-rueckforderung-rechtens-malta-bleibt-jedoch-stur/","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"RIS full text 3 Nc 72/24d: 17.12.2024; EUR 21,743.63; C* Limited; Bank of Valletta; BG Salzburg designated; reasoning","url":"https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/Justiz/JJT_20241217_OGH0002_0030NC00072_24D0000_001/JJT_20241217_OGH0002_0030NC00072_24D0000_001.html","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"RIS full text 3 Nc 22/25b: 16.06.2025; EUR 574,148; B* Ltd; BG Döbling designated; Art. 56A Gaming Act (Act XXI/2023)","url":"https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/Justiz/JJT_20250616_OGH0002_0030NC00022_25B0000_000/JJT_20250616_OGH0002_0030NC00022_25B0000_000.html","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"OGH 3 Nc 10/24m, 3 April 2024: Ordination granted, enforcement in Malta unreasonable (Act XXI/2023)","url":"https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/Justiz/JJT_20240403_OGH0002_0030NC00010_24M0000_000/JJT_20240403_OGH0002_0030NC00010_24M0000_000.html","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"open":[],"status_read_from_records":true,"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/refund-claims/ogh-3-nc-72-24d-ordination-vollstreckung-malta-banken/"},{"id":"GL-AU-0022","slug":"bergman-v-sportsbet-fast-code","title":"Bergman v Sportsbet Pty Ltd (Fast Code in-play betting class action)","short_name":"Sportsbet Fast Code class action","aliases":["sportsbet class action","sportsbet fast code class action","sportsbet in-play betting lawsuit","sportsbet class action payout","sportsbet class action opt out"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"AU","state":"VIC","court":"Supreme Court of Victoria","level":"first-instance"},"docket":"S ECI 2024 07057","filed":"2024-12-24","category":"sportsbook","case_type":"class-action","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Jeremy Bergman for persons who placed one or more bets using Sportsbet's Fast Code service between 24 December 2018 and 24 December 2024 and lost more than they won","defendants":["Sportsbet Pty Ltd"],"class_counsel":["Maurice Blackburn"],"defense_counsel":["Allens"],"judge":"Craig J (trial from 3 August 2026); Matthews J (GCO ruling 28 August 2025); Delany J (opt-out orders 27 October 2025)"},"claims":["Interactive Gambling Act 2001 (Cth): in-play betting provided other than wholly by telephone","betting contracts void or breached","Australian Consumer Law misleading or deceptive conduct (representation that Fast Code was lawful)","damages and restitution of net losses"],"status":"filed","status_date":"2026-08-03","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"AUD","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"group costs order: Maurice Blackburn entitled to 33% (inclusive of GST) of any award or settlement under s 33ZDA Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) (Bergman v Sportsbet Pty Ltd (GCO Ruling) [2025] VSC 521, 28 August 2025); damages and restitution sought for persons who placed Fast Code bets 24 December 2018 to 24 December 2024 and lost more than they won","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"2026-02-13","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://www.supremecourt.vic.gov.au/sportsbet-class-action","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://www.supremecourt.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2025-09/GCO%20Ruling%20-%20%5B2025%5D%20VSC%20521.pdf","https://www.supremecourt.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2025-09/GCO%20Ruling%20-%20%5B2025%5D%20VSC%20521.pdf"],"regulator":"","press":["https://www.lawyerly.com.au/contingency-fee-of-33-justified-in-novel-sportsbet-class-action/"]},"summary":"The first Australian class action to attack a bookmaker's product as unlawful: Sportsbet's Fast Code let customers key bet details into the app and then confirm by a short phone call, which the plaintiff says breached the Interactive Gambling Act's ban on online in-play betting and makes the bets void. Matthews J approved a 33% group costs order on 28 August 2025 ([2025] VSC 521) because the case was novel; opt-out closed 13 February 2026; the trial before Craig J began on 3 August 2026 and ran two to three weeks. Judgment is pending.","significance":"pending-landmark","related_cases":["GL-AU-0023"],"sources":[{"claim":"proceeding number, class period, allegations, GCO ruling [2025] VSC 521, opt-out 13 February 2026, trial from 3 August 2026 before Craig J","url":"https://www.supremecourt.vic.gov.au/sportsbet-class-action","retrieved":"2026-11-14"},{"claim":"33% group costs order approved 28 August 2025 as justified by a relatively novel case","url":"https://www.lawyerly.com.au/contingency-fee-of-33-justified-in-novel-sportsbet-class-action/","retrieved":"2026-11-14"},{"claim":"proceeding S ECI 2024 07057 commenced by writ 24 December 2024; GCO 33% incl. GST, Matthews J, 28 August 2025; plaintiff solicitors Maurice Blackburn, defendant solicitors Allens; defence filed 17 April 2025","url":"https://www.supremecourt.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2025-09/GCO%20Ruling%20-%20%5B2025%5D%20VSC%20521.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"court page: class definition, opt-out deadline 4pm 13 February 2026 (passed), trial from Monday 3 August 2026 before Craig J for 2-3 weeks, filings to 6 August 2026, no judgment listed","url":"https://www.supremecourt.vic.gov.au/sportsbet-class-action","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"court news 3 August 2026: Sportsbet Fast Code trial before Justice Robert Craig, set to run 3 weeks","url":"https://www.supremecourt.vic.gov.au/news/class-action-trials-begin","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"open":["trial judgment (trial began 3 August 2026; no judgment on the court page as at 14 November 2026)"],"status_read_from_records":true,"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/sportsbook/bergman-v-sportsbet-fast-code/"},{"id":"GL-AU-0006","slug":"jowene-v-star-entertainment","title":"Jowene Pty Ltd v The Star Entertainment Group Ltd","short_name":"Star class action (Phi Finney McDonald, stayed)","aliases":["phi finney mcdonald star class action","star woodsford class action"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"AU","state":"VIC","court":"Supreme Court of Victoria","level":"first-instance"},"docket":"S ECI 2023 00413","filed":"2023-02-03","category":"securities-shareholder","case_type":"class-action","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Jowene Pty Ltd as trustee for the Biro Citer Souvenirs Pty Limited Pension Fund, for investors who acquired or held Star shares 29 March 2016 to 13 June 2022","defendants":["The Star Entertainment Group Limited"],"class_counsel":["Phi Finney McDonald"],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"Nichols J"},"claims":["continuous disclosure breaches","misleading or deceptive conduct"],"status":"stayed","status_date":"2023-09-19","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"AUD","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://www.supremecourt.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2024-06/Ruling%20%5B2023%5D%20VSC%20561%20-%20Multiplicity%20and%20GCO.pdf"],"regulator":"","press":["https://phifinneymcdonald.com/action/star-entertainment-class-action"]},"summary":"A Woodsford-funded competing class action (filed 3 February 2023) over the same disclosures; after the June 2023 multiplicity hearing Nichols J gave carriage to the Slater and Gordon (DA Lynch) proceeding on 19 September 2023 and permanently stayed this proceeding ([2023] VSC 561). Investors are directed to the DA Lynch proceeding.","significance":"routine","related_cases":["GL-AU-0005"],"sources":[{"claim":"plaintiff, class period, allegations, carriage outcome and stay","url":"https://phifinneymcdonald.com/action/star-entertainment-class-action","retrieved":"2026-11-14"},{"claim":"proceeding S ECI 2023 00413 filed 3 February 2023 by Phi Finney McDonald, funder Woodsford, permanently stayed 19 September 2023","url":"https://www.supremecourt.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2024-06/Ruling%20%5B2023%5D%20VSC%20561%20-%20Multiplicity%20and%20GCO.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"open":[],"status_read_from_records":true,"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/securities-shareholder/jowene-v-star-entertainment/"},{"id":"GL-AU-0009","slug":"austrac-v-star","title":"Chief Executive Officer of AUSTRAC v The Star Pty Ltd and The Star Entertainment Qld Ltd","short_name":"AUSTRAC v Star AUD 260 million penalty","aliases":["austrac star fine","star casino money laundering fine","star 260 million penalty","austrac v star"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"AU","state":"NSW","court":"Federal Court of Australia","level":"regulatory-court"},"docket":"NSD1025/2022","filed":"2022-11-30","category":"regulator-court","case_type":"regulator-v-operator","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Chief Executive Officer of AUSTRAC","defendants":["The Star Pty Limited (The Star Sydney)","The Star Entertainment Qld Limited (Gold Coast, Treasury Brisbane)"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"Moore J"},"claims":["AML/CTF Act 2006 (Cth): non-compliant AML/CTF program, failures of ongoing customer due diligence, source-of-funds and third-party transaction controls"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2026-10-28","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"AUD","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":"AUD 260,000,000, payable in four instalments over 19 months (ASX announcement 29 October 2026); press reports of the orders: AUD 195M The Star Pty Ltd (Sydney) and AUD 65M The Star Entertainment Qld Ltd, instalments between 25 November 2026 and 25 May 2028"},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2026/2026fca1606"],"regulator":"https://www.austrac.gov.au/news-and-media/media-release/austrac-commences-proceedings-federal-court-against-star-entertainment-group-entities","press":["https://asgam.com/2026/10/28/australias-federal-court-hits-star-with-combined-au260-million-in-penalties-in-austrac-civil-case/","https://www.lawyersweekly.com.au/biglaw/45347-star-penalty-marks-first-contested-aml-ctf-issue","https://www.gaming.net/federal-court-orders-the-star-to-pay-260-million-for-aml-breaches/"]},"summary":"AUSTRAC's civil penalty case against Star's Sydney and Queensland casinos was the first casino AML case in which the penalty was contested: facts were agreed but AUSTRAC sought AUD 400 million and Star argued for no more than AUD 100 million. On 28 October 2026 Moore J ordered AUD 260 million (Chief Executive Officer of AUSTRAC v The Star Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 1606), payable in four instalments to May 2028, finding that more than 1,200 high-risk customers gambled through high-risk channels and that Star earned about AUD 1.33 billion from them between November 2016 and November 2022. Star accepted the penalty and said it matched its provision.","significance":"largest-settlement","related_cases":["GL-AU-0004","GL-AU-0005","GL-AU-0010","GL-AU-0011"],"sources":[{"claim":"judgment 28 October 2026, Moore J, [2026] FCA 1606, AUD 195M + AUD 65M, instalments 25 Nov 2026 to 25 May 2028, AUSTRAC sought AUD 400M, Star proposed AUD 100M","url":"https://asgam.com/2026/10/28/australias-federal-court-hits-star-with-combined-au260-million-in-penalties-in-austrac-civil-case/","retrieved":"2026-11-14"},{"claim":"contraventions, 1,200 high-risk customers, Star statement on provision and WhiteHawk facility","url":"https://www.gaming.net/federal-court-orders-the-star-to-pay-260-million-for-aml-breaches/","retrieved":"2026-11-14"},{"claim":"ASX announcement 29 October 2026: Federal Court judgment 28 October 2026 against The Star Pty Limited and The Star Entertainment Qld Limited, penalty AUD 260,000,000 accepted, four instalments over 19 months, materially in line with provision, WhiteHawk review event","url":"https://announcements.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20261029/pdf/075ypkz2t0t9qq.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"file number NSD1025/2022, New South Wales Registry, concise statement lodged 30 November 2022","url":"https://www.austrac.gov.au/sites/default/files/2022-12/AUSTRAC%20v%20Star%20Concise%20Statement%202022.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary","note":"AUSTRAC-hosted court-stamped PDF; download timed out, file number and lodgment date read from the Federal Court notice of filing as indexed by web search"},{"claim":"AUSTRAC filed Federal Court proceedings against Star subsidiaries on 30 November 2022","url":"https://www.supremecourt.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2024-06/Ruling%20%5B2023%5D%20VSC%20561%20-%20Multiplicity%20and%20GCO.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary","note":"Supreme Court of Victoria ruling [2023] VSC 561 at [47]"}],"open":["costs order","the judgment text was not retrievable (Federal Court site blocks automated access); figures rest on press reports of the ASX announcement and judgment summary","instalment dates (press: 25 November 2026 to 25 May 2028) and the AUD 195M / AUD 65M split to be confirmed in the orders; the ASX announcement gives only the total and \"four instalments over 19 months\""],"status_read_from_records":true,"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/regulator-court/austrac-v-star/"},{"id":"GL-AU-0007","slug":"maurice-blackburn-star-class-action","title":"Drake v The Star Entertainment Group Ltd (Maurice Blackburn shareholder class action)","short_name":"Star class action (Maurice Blackburn, stayed)","aliases":["maurice blackburn star class action","drake v star entertainment"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"AU","state":"VIC","court":"Supreme Court of Victoria","level":"first-instance"},"docket":"S ECI 2022 04492","filed":"2022-11-04","category":"securities-shareholder","case_type":"class-action","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Travis Donald Drake for shareholders who acquired Star shares 29 March 2016 to 16 March 2022","defendants":["The Star Entertainment Group Limited"],"class_counsel":["Maurice Blackburn"],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"Nichols J"},"claims":["inadequate AML/CTF systems","misleading or deceptive conduct","continuous disclosure breaches","conduct contrary to the interests of shareholders as a whole"],"status":"stayed","status_date":"2023-09-19","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"AUD","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://www.supremecourt.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2024-06/Ruling%20%5B2023%5D%20VSC%20561%20-%20Multiplicity%20and%20GCO.pdf"],"regulator":"","press":["https://www.mauriceblackburn.com.au/class-actions/past-class-actions/star-shareholder-class-action/"]},"summary":"Maurice Blackburn's competing Star proceeding (Travis Donald Drake, filed 4 November 2022, class period to 16 March 2022) was one of the four actions in the 2023 carriage contest; Slater and Gordon won carriage on 19 September 2023 and this action was permanently stayed ([2023] VSC 561). Listed by the firm as a past class action.","significance":"routine","related_cases":["GL-AU-0005"],"sources":[{"claim":"filing date 4 November 2022, class period, allegations","url":"https://www.mauriceblackburn.com.au/class-actions/past-class-actions/star-shareholder-class-action/","retrieved":"2026-11-14"},{"claim":"proceeding S ECI 2022 04492 filed 4 November 2022 by Maurice Blackburn for Travis Donald Drake, permanently stayed 19 September 2023; filing order Lynch, Drake, Jowene, Huang","url":"https://www.supremecourt.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2024-06/Ruling%20%5B2023%5D%20VSC%20561%20-%20Multiplicity%20and%20GCO.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"open":[],"status_read_from_records":true,"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/securities-shareholder/maurice-blackburn-star-class-action/"},{"id":"GL-AU-0003","slug":"lieberman-v-crown-resorts","title":"Lieberman v Crown Resorts Ltd","short_name":"Crown Resorts money-laundering-risk shareholder class action (Crown II)","aliases":["crown money laundering class action","crown resorts second class action","crown resorts shareholder group proceeding","lieberman v crown"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"AU","state":"VIC","court":"Supreme Court of Victoria","level":"first-instance"},"docket":"S ECI 2020 04566","filed":"2020-12-11","category":"securities-shareholder","case_type":"class-action","parties":{"plaintiffs":"persons who acquired or held Crown Resorts shares between 11 December 2014 and 18 October 2020 (inclusive)","defendants":["Crown Resorts Limited"],"class_counsel":["Maurice Blackburn"],"defense_counsel":["Allens"],"judge":"Nichols J (settlement approval, class closure orders); Stynes J (group costs order 16 December 2022)"},"claims":["misleading or deceptive conduct about AML/CTF compliance systems (VIP International business, junket program)","continuous disclosure breaches","conduct contrary to the interests of members as a whole (oppression)"],"status":"claims-closed","status_date":"2026-07-31","money":{"fund":72500000,"currency":"AUD","attorney_fees":19937500,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"AUD 72.5M inclusive of legal, administration and other costs, paid in three instalments (AUD 20M paid before approval; AUD 25M by 11 May 2026, received 11 May 2026; AUD 27.5M by 10 May 2027); deductions approved in [2025] VSC 596: legal costs under the group costs order at 27.5% of the settlement sum = AUD 19,937,500, settlement administration costs up to AUD 696,736.70 incl. GST, costs expert AUD 4,208, plaintiff reimbursement AUD 20,000; remainder distributed pro rata to approximately 4,600 registered group members (193 opted out) under the settlement distribution scheme administered by Maurice Blackburn","payout_actual":"interim distribution payments made in July 2026; final distribution expected after the third instalment (mid-2027)","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"2024-08-23","exclusion_deadline":"2024-08-23","final_approval_hearing":"2025-09-05","payment_date":"2026-07","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://www.supremecourt.vic.gov.au/areas/group-proceedings/crown-resorts-shareholder","administrator":"https://mauriceblackburn.com.au/class-actions/join-a-class-action/crown-money-laundering-risk-class-action","claim_form":"","orders":["https://www.supremecourt.vic.gov.au/areas/group-proceedings/crown-resorts-shareholder","https://www.supremecourt.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2025-09/Judgment%20of%20the%20Honourable%20Justice%20Nichols%20%28Revised%2023%20September%202025%29%20%5B2025%5D%20VSC%20596.pdf","https://www.supremecourt.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2022-12/Lieberman%20v%20Crown%20Resorts%20Ltd%20%5B2022%5D%20VSC%20787.pdf"],"regulator":"","press":["https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/7053482/crown-resorts-hit-with-second-class-action/"]},"summary":"Filed 11 December 2020 after Crown's shares fell on 19 October 2020 when AUSTRAC announced a formal enforcement investigation, the claim alleged Crown misled the market about the adequacy of its anti-money-laundering systems during 2014-2020. The parties settled at mediation (deed dated 9 May 2025) for AUD 72.5 million payable in three instalments; Nichols J approved the settlement on 19 September 2025 in Lieberman v Crown Resorts Ltd [2025] VSC 596 (revised 23 September 2025), left the 27.5% group costs order unchanged and approved administration costs of up to AUD 696,736.70. Registration closed 23 August 2024; interim payments went out in July 2026 and the final distribution follows the last instalment due 10 May 2027.","significance":"largest-settlement","related_cases":["GL-AU-0001","GL-AU-0004"],"sources":[{"claim":"proceeding number, class period, GCO ruling [2022] VSC 787, approval judgment [2025] VSC 596, deadlines","url":"https://www.supremecourt.vic.gov.au/areas/group-proceedings/crown-resorts-shareholder","retrieved":"2026-11-14"},{"claim":"settlement AUD 72.5M, instalment schedule, interim distribution July 2026, final distribution mid-2027","url":"https://mauriceblackburn.com.au/class-actions/join-a-class-action/crown-money-laundering-risk-class-action","retrieved":"2026-11-14"},{"claim":"judgment 19 September 2025 revised 23 September 2025, hearing 5 September 2025, settlement deed 9 May 2025, AUD 72.5M in instalments AUD 20M / AUD 25M by 11 May 2026 / AUD 27.5M by 10 May 2027, GCO 27.5% = AUD 19,937,500, administration costs up to AUD 696,736.70, reimbursement AUD 20,000, approx 4,600 registered and 193 opt-outs, proceeding commenced 11 December 2020","url":"https://www.supremecourt.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2025-09/Judgment%20of%20the%20Honourable%20Justice%20Nichols%20%28Revised%2023%20September%202025%29%20%5B2025%5D%20VSC%20596.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"GCO ruling Stynes J 16 December 2022, sliding scale 27.5% / 22% / 16.5%, plaintiff solicitors Maurice Blackburn, defendant solicitors Allens","url":"https://www.supremecourt.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2022-12/Lieberman%20v%20Crown%20Resorts%20Ltd%20%5B2022%5D%20VSC%20787.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"open":["settlement administrator's completion report and final distribution (expected after 10 May 2027)"],"status_read_from_records":true,"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/securities-shareholder/lieberman-v-crown-resorts/"},{"aliases":["grondwettelijk hof 45/2026 epis","epis controle drankgelegenheden grondwettelijk hof"],"docket":"arrest 45/2026, rolnummers 8356, 8361, 8362 en 8363 (ECLI:BE:GHCC:2026:ARR.045)","filed":"2024-11-05","claims":["privacy and data protection (EPIS data, five-year retention)","equality: no EPIS check for class III venues (cafés) and for online lottery games"],"status_date":"2026-04-16","parties":{"plaintiffs":"nv Derby; nv Gambling Management, nv Casino de Spa and nv Circus Belgium; nv Ascot, nv Belgische PMU and bv World Football Association; vzw Waregem Draaft and vzw Koninklijke Waregemse Koersvereniging","defendants":["Belgian State"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":""},"money":{"fund":0,"currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://nl.const-court.be/public/n/2026/2026-045n.pdf","https://nl.const-court.be/public/n/2026/2026-045n-info.pdf"],"regulator":"","press":[]},"significance":"routine","related_cases":["GL-BE-0005"],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"id":"GL-BE-0006","slug":"constitutional-court-45-2026-epis-law-2024","title":"Beroepen tot gedeeltelijke vernietiging van de wet van 7 mei 2024 (EPIS-controle), Grondwettelijk Hof 45/2026 (16 april 2026)","short_name":"EPIS exclusion checks constitutional; café gaming and online lottery exemptions discriminatory","jurisdiction":{"country":"BE","state":"","court":"Grondwettelijk Hof / Cour constitutionnelle","level":"supreme"},"category":"licensing-administrative","case_type":"constitutional","status":"judgment","summary":"Four groups of operators and two horse-racing associations sought partial annulment of the law of 7 May 2024 amending the gambling law (EPIS exclusion-register checks, follow-up to the law of 18 February 2024, confirmation of the 2024 Kansspelcommissie contribution decree). On 16 April 2026 the Court rejected the privacy and data-protection pleas against the EPIS check, annulled articles 14, 1° and 15 of the law insofar as the prior EPIS check does not apply to class C licence holders (drinking establishments), maintaining the effects of the annulled provision until 31 December 2027 at the latest, and found it discriminatory (B.25.3.3) that the Nationale Loterij's online lottery games are subject neither to a prior EPIS check nor to the 21-year age condition, ordering the legislature to remedy this by 31 December 2026; the remaining pleas were rejected.","sources":[{"claim":"press release arrest 45/2026, 16 April 2026","url":"https://nl.const-court.be/public/n/2026/2026-045n-info.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"full judgment","url":"https://nl.const-court.be/public/n/2026/2026-045n.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"arrest 45/2026 of 16 April 2026, rolnummers 8356, 8361, 8362, 8363, petitions 5 and 20-21 Nov 2024; operative part: annuls arts 14, 1° and 15 insofar as not applicable to class C licence holders, effects maintained to 31 Dec 2027, rest rejected subject to B.25.3.3 to be remedied by 31 Dec 2026","url":"https://nl.const-court.be/public/n/2026/2026-045n.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"press release 16 April 2026","url":"https://nl.const-court.be/public/n/2026/2026-045n-info.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/licensing-administrative/constitutional-court-45-2026-epis-law-2024/"},{"aliases":["grondwettelijk hof 165/2025 kansspelen","belgium gambling advertising ban constitutional court 2025","nationale loterij discriminatie grondwettelijk hof"],"docket":"arrest 165/2025, rolnummers 8309, 8313, 8314, 8315, 8316 en 8319 (ECLI:BE:GHCC:2025:ARR.165)","filed":"2024-08-28","claims":["equality (arts. 10-11 Constitution) between private operators and the Nationale Loterij","freedom of enterprise, proportionality of the 21-year age limit, bonus ban and advertising ban"],"status_date":"2025-12-11","parties":{"plaintiffs":"nv Ascot e.a.; nv NGG e.a.; nv Chaudfontaine Loisirs and bv SGS Betting; Unibet Belgium Ltd e.a.; nv Derby; nv Gambling Management e.a.","defendants":["Belgian State (Ministerraad)"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":""},"money":{"fund":0,"currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://nl.const-court.be/public/n/2025/2025-165n.pdf","https://nl.const-court.be/public/n/2025/2025-165n-info.pdf"],"regulator":"","press":[]},"significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-BE-0006"],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"id":"GL-BE-0005","slug":"constitutional-court-165-2025-player-protection-law-2024","title":"Beroepen tot vernietiging van de wet van 18 februari 2024 (spelersbescherming: cumulverbod websites, 21 jaar, bonusverbod, reclameverbod), Grondwettelijk Hof 165/2025 (11 december 2025)","short_name":"Belgian Constitutional Court largely upholds 2024 player-protection law, finds National Lottery exception discriminatory","jurisdiction":{"country":"BE","state":"","court":"Grondwettelijk Hof / Cour constitutionnelle","level":"supreme"},"category":"licensing-administrative","case_type":"constitutional","status":"judgment","summary":"Six groups of operators attacked four measures of the law of 18 February 2024. On 11 December 2025 the Court annulled article 4 (the ban on cumulating licences on one website and redirecting players), because it does not apply to comparable online lottery games of the Nationale Loterij, but maintained its effects until new legislation and at the latest 31 December 2026. It rejected the other pleas against the 21-year age limit, the bonus ban and the advertising ban, while finding (B.30.2, B.36.2, B.45.2) that the absence of similar rules for certain online lottery games in the Nationale Loterij law is discriminatory and ordering the legislature to remove those discriminations by 31 December 2026.","sources":[{"claim":"press release arrest 165/2025, 11 Dec 2025, holdings and deadlines","url":"https://nl.const-court.be/public/n/2025/2025-165n-info.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"full judgment","url":"https://nl.const-court.be/public/n/2025/2025-165n.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"arrest 165/2025 of 11 Dec 2025, rolnummers 8309, 8313, 8314, 8315, 8316, 8319, petitions posted 28-30 Aug 2024; operative part: annuls art. 4 of the law of 18 Feb 2024, maintains effects until new legislation and at latest 31 Dec 2026, rejects the rest subject to B.30.2, B.36.2, B.45.2 to be remedied by 31 Dec 2026","url":"https://nl.const-court.be/public/n/2025/2025-165n.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/licensing-administrative/constitutional-court-165-2025-player-protection-law-2024/"},{"aliases":["raad van state 265.002 speellimiet koninklijk besluit 2022","belgium deposit limit 200 euro council of state"],"docket":"A. 237.272/VII-41.669; ECLI:BE:RVSCE:2025:ARR.265.002","filed":"2022-09-19","claims":["annulment of arts. 9 and 11 of the Royal Decree of 19 June 2022 (lower default weekly deposit limit per website; consultation of the Central Individual Credit Register)","legal certainty"],"status_date":"2025-11-27","parties":{"plaintiffs":"nv European Amusement Company","defendants":["Belgische Staat (minister van Justitie)"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":""},"money":{"fund":0,"currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":"appeal rejected; costs EUR 200 + 22 + 770 to the State"},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://curia.europa.eu/site/upload/docs/application/pdf/2026-04/265002.pdf"],"regulator":"","press":[]},"significance":"routine","related_cases":[],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"id":"GL-BE-0007","slug":"european-amusement-company-v-belgian-state-deposit-limit-decree","title":"nv European Amusement Company tegen Belgische Staat (koninklijk besluit 19 juni 2022, speellimiet per website en raadpleging Centrale voor Kredieten), Raad van State 27 november 2025, arrest nr. 265.002","short_name":"Council of State upholds 2022 online deposit-limit decree","jurisdiction":{"country":"BE","state":"","court":"Raad van State, afdeling bestuursrechtspraak","level":"appeal"},"category":"licensing-administrative","case_type":"operator-v-regulator","status":"dismissed","summary":"An operator challenged the 2022 decree that lowered the default online deposit limit and made it apply per website. The Council of State rejected the legal-certainty plea, holding that disputes over the meaning of \"website\" do not make the rule unlawful, and dismissed the action on 27 November 2025.","sources":[{"claim":"arrest 265.002, 27 Nov 2025, parties, disposition, costs","url":"https://curia.europa.eu/site/upload/docs/application/pdf/2026-04/265002.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/licensing-administrative/european-amusement-company-v-belgian-state-deposit-limit-decree/"},{"aliases":["raad van state unibet blankenberge a+ vergunning","rocoluc unibet casino raad van state 2024"],"docket":"A. 233013/VII-41033; ECLI:BE:RVSCE:2024:ARR.261.713","filed":"2021","claims":["annulment of the Kansspelcommissie decision of 11 Dec 2020 granting additional licence A+ no. 505296 (www.casino.unibet.be, later www.unibetcasino.be) as contrary to arrest 108/2018"],"status_date":"2024-12-11","parties":{"plaintiffs":"nv Rocoluc, nv Fremoluc, F.V.","defendants":["Belgische Staat (minister van Justitie)","Kansspelcommissie"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":""},"money":{"fund":0,"currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://kohenavocats.com/jurisprudences/eclibervsce2024arr-261-713/"],"regulator":"","press":[]},"significance":"routine","related_cases":["GL-BE-0001"],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"id":"GL-BE-0002","slug":"rocoluc-v-kansspelcommissie-unibet-blankenberge-a-plus-licence","title":"nv Rocoluc, nv Fremoluc en F.V. tegen Belgische Staat en Kansspelcommissie (A+-vergunning nv Blankenberge Casino-Kursaal, unibetcasino.be), Raad van State 11 december 2024, arrest nr. 261.713","short_name":"Council of State upholds Unibet casino A+ licence","jurisdiction":{"country":"BE","state":"","court":"Raad van State, afdeling bestuursrechtspraak","level":"appeal"},"category":"licensing-administrative","case_type":"operator-v-regulator","status":"dismissed","summary":"Competitors argued that the A+ licence granted to Blankenberge Casino-Kursaal for the Unibet casino domain breached the constitutional cumulation ban. The Council of State found only Rocoluc had standing and rejected the plea, since the licence did not authorise cumulation through one domain; costs went to the applicants.","sources":[{"claim":"arrest 261.713, 11 Dec 2024, parties, holding","url":"https://kohenavocats.com/jurisprudences/eclibervsce2024arr-261-713/","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/licensing-administrative/rocoluc-v-kansspelcommissie-unibet-blankenberge-a-plus-licence/"},{"aliases":["grondwettelijk hof 34/2018 btw online kansspelen","belgium vat online gambling annulled 2018"],"docket":"rolnummers 6564, 6567, 6576, 6577, 6579, 6584","filed":"2016-12","claims":["annulment of arts. 29-34 programmawet 1 July 2016 removing the VAT exemption for online games of chance other than lotteries"],"status_date":"2018-03-22","parties":{"plaintiffs":"nv Casinos Austria International Belgium, Blancas, Middelkerke Casino Kursaal, Casino Kursaal Oostende, Grand Casino de Dinant; Waalse Regering; Reel Europe Ltd and Pac-Man; Sagevas; Star Matic and Unibet (Belgium) Ltd; Rocoluc","defendants":["Belgian State (Ministerraad)"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":""},"money":{"fund":0,"currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":"arts. 29-34 annulled; effects maintained (tax collected since 1 July 2016 not refunded)"},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://nl.const-court.be/public/n/2018/2018-034n.pdf"],"regulator":"","press":[]},"significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-EU-0210","GL-EU-0211"],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"id":"GL-BE-0003","slug":"belgian-online-gambling-vat-constitutional-court-34-2018","title":"Casinos Austria International Belgium e.a., Waalse Regering, Unibet (Belgium) Ltd, Rocoluc e.a. tegen de programmawet van 1 juli 2016 (btw op online kansspelen), Grondwettelijk Hof 34/2018 (22 maart 2018)","short_name":"Constitutional Court annuls VAT on online gambling (2018)","jurisdiction":{"country":"BE","state":"","court":"Grondwettelijk Hof / Cour constitutionnelle","level":"supreme"},"category":"tax","case_type":"constitutional","status":"judgment","summary":"Belgium abolished the VAT exemption for online gambling (except lotteries) from 1 July 2016. The Constitutional Court annulled the provisions on 22 March 2018 for breach of the division of competences but maintained their effects. The legislature re-enacted the tax, leading to the CJEU judgments of 12 September 2024 in Casino de Spa (C-741/22) and Chaudfontaine Loisirs (C-73/23).","sources":[{"claim":"arrest 34/2018, 22 March 2018, parties, annulment with maintained effects","url":"https://nl.const-court.be/public/n/2018/2018-034n.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/tax/belgian-online-gambling-vat-constitutional-court-34-2018/"},{"aliases":["grondwettelijk hof 108/2018 kansspelen","rocoluc kansspelcommissie raad van state","cumul vergunningen a+ b+ f1+ domeinnaam"],"docket":"rolnummers 6510-6512 (129/2017); 6881 (108/2018)","filed":"2016","claims":["art. 10 and 11 Constitution (equality) applied to the Kansspelwet of 7 May 1999 (arts. 4, 6, 34, 43/4, 43/8)"],"status_date":"2018-07-19","parties":{"plaintiffs":"nv Rocoluc (casino operator)","defendants":["Kansspelcommissie","Ministerraad"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":""},"money":{"fund":0,"currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://nl.const-court.be/public/n/2017/2017-129n.pdf","https://nl.const-court.be/public/n/2018/2018-108n.pdf"],"regulator":"","press":[]},"significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-BE-0002","GL-BE-0003"],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"id":"GL-BE-0001","slug":"rocoluc-v-kansspelcommissie-cumul-online-licences","title":"nv Rocoluc tegen Kansspelcommissie: Raad van State 13 september 2016 (nrs. 235.744-235.746), Grondwettelijk Hof 129/2017 (9 november 2017) en 108/2018 (19 juli 2018)","short_name":"Belgian Constitutional Court bans cumulating online licence classes on one domain","jurisdiction":{"country":"BE","state":"","court":"Grondwettelijk Hof / Cour constitutionnelle","level":"supreme"},"category":"licensing-administrative","case_type":"constitutional","status":"judgment","summary":"On a question from the Council of State, the Constitutional Court held on 9 November 2017 that the Gambling Act breaches equality in so far as it does not prohibit cumulating additional licences of different classes (A+, B+, F1+) for casino games, arcade games and betting through one domain name, when the same cumulation is forbidden for physical venues. On 19 July 2018 (108/2018) it annulled the Act to that extent, and an interpretation judgment of 13 October 2022 (122/2022) clarified the scope; judgment 114/2021 (16 September 2021) extended the ban to a single holder. The rulings forced Belgian online operators to split brands per licence class.","sources":[{"claim":"arrest 129/2017, 9 Nov 2017, question from RvS arresten 235.744-746 of 13 Sept 2016, holding","url":"https://nl.const-court.be/public/n/2017/2017-129n.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"arrest 108/2018, 19 July 2018, annulment","url":"https://nl.const-court.be/public/n/2018/2018-108n.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"arrest 122/2022, 13 Oct 2022, interpretation","url":"https://www.const-court.be/public/n/2022/2022-122n.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"arrest 114/2021, 16 Sept 2021 (single holder)","url":"https://www.stibbe.com/nl/publications-and-insights/kansspelen-en-weddenschappen-van-verschillende-klassen-mogen-niet-worden","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"}],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/licensing-administrative/rocoluc-v-kansspelcommissie-cumul-online-licences/"},{"id":"GL-BR-0013","slug":"adi-8014-anjl-v-minas-gerais-decreto-publicidade-bets","title":"ADI 8014 - Associação Nacional de Jogos e Loterias v. Decreto estadual 49.279/2026 (Minas Gerais)","short_name":"ADI 8014 Minas Gerais bets-ad decree","aliases":["adi 8014","decreto minas gerais bets","dino publicidade bets minas"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"BR","state":"MG","court":"Supremo Tribunal Federal (monocratic, Min. Flávio Dino)","level":"supreme"},"docket":"ADI 8014 (0183924-17.2026.1.00.0000)","filed":"2026-09-03","category":"advertising-marketing","case_type":"operator-v-regulator","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Associação Nacional de Jogos e Loterias (ANJL)","defendants":["Governador do Estado de Minas Gerais"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"Min. Flávio Dino (relator)"},"claims":["Decree barring bets and adult-content advertising on state property, channels and state-backed events exceeds state power and invades federal competence over advertising"],"status":"filed","status_date":"2026-09-21","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"BRL","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://portal.stf.jus.br/processos/listarProcessos.asp?classe=ADI&numeroProcesso=8014","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":[],"regulator":"","press":["https://noticias.stf.jus.br/postsnoticias/stf-mantem-decreto-de-minas-gerais-que-restringe-publicidade-de-bets/"]},"summary":"Dino refused the injunction on 21 September 2026: a state may decide, by decree and under the 'reserva de administração', not to carry betting advertising on its own assets, channels and events; he cited the Senate CPIs on bingos and bets. The refusal was not appealed; information requests to the ministers and the governor were partly unanswered by October 2026.","significance":"routine","related_cases":["GL-BR-0012"],"sources":[{"claim":"Liminar denied 21/09/2026, decree 49.279/2026, reasoning","url":"https://noticias.stf.jus.br/postsnoticias/stf-mantem-decreto-de-minas-gerais-que-restringe-publicidade-de-bets/","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"Filing 03/09/2026 and grounds","url":"https://noticias.stf.jus.br/postsnoticias/associacao-questiona-decreto-de-minas-gerais-que-restringe-publicidade-de-bets/","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"Docket: autuado 03/09/2026; liminar indeferida 21/09/2026; not challenged (certidão 15/10/2026); Docket (complete): Protocolado 'Petição Inicial (nº 111886) recebida em 03/09/2026, às 17:51:13', Autuado and Distribuído to Min. Flávio Dino 03/09/2026; 'Liminar indeferida' 21/09/2026 (monocratic, Dino); certidão 15/10/2026 'O indeferimento da liminar não foi impugnado'; certidão 14/10/2026 that the Ministers of Sport, Finance and Justice and the Government of Minas Gerais had not sent information; Informações 21/10/2026 (two) and 27/10/2026; certidões 10/11/2026 that the Ministry of Justice rema","url":"https://portal.stf.jus.br/processos/abaAndamentos.asp?incidente=7687739&imprimir=true","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/advertising-marketing/adi-8014-anjl-v-minas-gerais-decreto-publicidade-bets/"},{"id":"GL-BR-0012","slug":"adi-7971-anjl-v-rio-grande-do-sul-publicidade-bets","title":"ADI 7971 - Associação Nacional de Jogos e Loterias v. Lei estadual 16.508/2026 (Rio Grande do Sul betting advertising)","short_name":"ADI 7971 RS betting-ad law","aliases":["adi 7971","lei 16.508 rs bets","publicidade bets rio grande do sul"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"BR","state":"RS","court":"Supremo Tribunal Federal","level":"supreme"},"docket":"ADI 7971 (0173760-90.2026.1.00.0000)","filed":"2026-05-15","category":"advertising-marketing","case_type":"operator-v-regulator","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Associação Nacional de Jogos e Loterias (ANJL)","defendants":["Governador e Assembleia Legislativa do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"Min. Cármen Lúcia (relatora)"},"claims":["State law restricting bets advertising (warnings, no child appeal, 6h-21h broadcast ban, fines) invades the Union's competence over lotteries and advertising"],"status":"filed","status_date":"2026-08-17","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"BRL","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://portal.stf.jus.br/processos/listarProcessos.asp?classe=ADI&numeroProcesso=7971","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":[],"regulator":"","press":["https://noticias.stf.jus.br/postsnoticias/lei-do-rs-que-restringe-publicidade-de-bets-e-questionada-no-stf/"]},"summary":"The operators' association attacked Rio Grande do Sul's 2026 law limiting betting advertising (mandatory warnings, no content appealing to minors, no TV/radio/streaming ads between 6h and 21h). The relatora requested information from the state (received 1-2 June 2026); no injunction has been decided. The case was listed among the eight STF betting cases for the second half of 2026.","significance":"routine","related_cases":["GL-BR-0013","GL-BR-0001"],"sources":[{"claim":"Filing, content of Lei 16.508/2026, grounds, relatora Cármen Lúcia","url":"https://noticias.stf.jus.br/postsnoticias/lei-do-rs-que-restringe-publicidade-de-bets-e-questionada-no-stf/","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"Docket: autuado 15/05/2026; informações 01-02/06/2026; Docket: Vista ao AGU 02/06/2026; Manifestação da AGU 09/06/2026 (petição 76103); Vista à PGR 09/06/2026; Manifestação da PGR 17/08/2026 (petição 103256); amicus petitions 23/06 and 21/08/2026; last entry 25/08/2026; no liminar decided; Docket (22 entries, complete): Protocolado 'Petição Inicial (nº 64408) recebida em 15/05/2026, às 12:15:29', Autuado and Distribuído to Min. Cármen Lúcia 15/05/2026; Determinada a diligência 25/05/2026; Informações 01/06/2026 (petição 72630) and 02/06/2026 (petição 73414); AGU 09/06/2026; PGR 17/08/2026; ami","url":"https://portal.stf.jus.br/processos/abaAndamentos.asp?incidente=7594398&imprimir=true","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/advertising-marketing/adi-7971-anjl-v-rio-grande-do-sul-publicidade-bets/"},{"id":"GL-BR-0019","slug":"re-1498128-tema-1323-loteria-fort-v-ceara","title":"RE 1498128 (Tema 1323) - Loteria Fort Ltda v. Estado do Ceará (private lottery operation requires licitação)","short_name":"Tema 1323 lottery delegation needs licitação","aliases":["tema 1323","re 1498128","loteria dos sonhos lotece stf"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"BR","state":"CE","court":"Supremo Tribunal Federal (Plenário Virtual)","level":"supreme"},"docket":"RE 1498128 (0118313-11.2019.8.06.0001)","filed":"2024-06-08","category":"lottery","case_type":"appeal","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Loteria Fort Ltda (private company from Fortaleza)","defendants":["Estado do Ceará"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"Ministro Presidente (Luís Roberto Barroso)"},"claims":["Whether a private company may run a lottery product similar to Lotece's 'Loteria dos Sonhos' without state delegation"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2024-09-28","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"BRL","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://portal.stf.jus.br/jurisprudenciaRepercussao/verAndamentoProcesso.asp?incidente=6949480&numeroProcesso=1498128&classeProcesso=RE&numeroTema=1323","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":[],"regulator":"","press":["https://noticias.stf.jus.br/postsnoticias/stf-reafirma-entendimento-de-que-exploracao-de-loterias-depende-de-licitacao/"]},"summary":"Unanimous reaffirmation of ADPFs 492/493 in the Plenário Virtual (20-28 September 2024): 'A execução do serviço público de loteria por agentes privados depende de delegação estatal precedida de licitação.' Published 1 October 2024; binding on pending similar cases.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-BR-0006","GL-BR-0011"],"sources":[{"claim":"Tema 1323 thesis, parties, virtual judgment 20-28/09/2024 unanimous, DJE 01/10/2024; Tema 1323 page: protocolo no STF 08/06/2024, autuado 11/06/2024; the 2019 is the year of the origin case 0118313-11.2019.8.06.0001 (TJCE, 3ª Turma Recursal); Tema 1323: recorrente Loteria Fort Ltda, recorrido Estado do Ceará, interessada Clotilde Batista Horacio; relator Ministro Presidente; origin 0118313-11.2019.8.06.0001 (TJCE 3ª Turma Recursal); registered as representativo da controvérsia 02/07/2024; pauta DJe 12/09/2024; virtual RG session started 20/09/2024, judged 28/09/2024 unanimously (constitutional","url":"https://portal.stf.jus.br/jurisprudenciaRepercussao/verAndamentoProcesso.asp?incidente=6949480&numeroProcesso=1498128&classeProcesso=RE&numeroTema=1323","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"Facts (Loteria dos Sonhos / Lotece) and reasoning","url":"https://noticias.stf.jus.br/postsnoticias/stf-reafirma-entendimento-de-que-exploracao-de-loterias-depende-de-licitacao/","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/lottery/re-1498128-tema-1323-loteria-fort-v-ceara/"},{"id":"GL-BR-0006","slug":"adpf-492-loterias-estaduais-monopolio-uniao","title":"ADPF 492 - Governador do Estado do Rio de Janeiro v. Decreto-Lei 204/1967 (federal lottery monopoly)","short_name":"ADPF 492 end of the federal lottery monopoly","aliases":["adpf 492","stf loterias estaduais 2020","decreto-lei 204 não recepcionado"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"BR","state":"","court":"Supremo Tribunal Federal (Plenário)","level":"supreme"},"docket":"ADPF 492 (0012568-66.2017.1.00.0000)","filed":"2017-10-23","category":"lottery","case_type":"constitutional","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Governador do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (Luiz Fernando Pezão)","defendants":["União (Decreto-Lei 204/1967)"],"class_counsel":["Procuradoria-Geral do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (Emerson Barbosa Maciel)"],"defense_counsel":["Advocacia-Geral da União"],"judge":"Min. Gilmar Mendes (relator)"},"claims":["Arts. 1 and 32 of Decreto-Lei 204/1967, which reserved lotteries to the Union and froze state lotteries, were not received by the 1988 Constitution"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2020-09-30","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"BRL","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://portal.stf.jus.br/processos/listarProcessos.asp?classe=ADPF&numeroProcesso=492","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":[],"regulator":"","press":["https://noticias.stf.jus.br/postsnoticias/stf-comeca-julgar-acoes-sobre-exclusividade-da-uniao-na-exploracao-de-loterias/"]},"summary":"Landmark: on 30 September 2020 the Plenary unanimously held that arts. 1 and 32 (caput and § 1) of Decreto-Lei 204/1967 were not received by the 1988 Constitution. The Union keeps exclusive power to legislate on lotteries (art. 22 XX CF) but has no monopoly on running them; lotteries are a public service that states may operate. Decided with ADPF 493 and ADI 4986; acórdão published 15 December 2020, final on 4 February 2021. Every later state-lottery case (Loterj, Lottopar, the bets ADIs) builds on this judgment.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-BR-0007","GL-BR-0008","GL-BR-0019","GL-BR-0005"],"sources":[{"claim":"Docket: autuado 23/10/2017; procedente 30/09/2020 (unanimous, arts. 1 and 32 DL 204/1967 not received); acórdão 15/12/2020; trânsito 04/02/2021; Docket: Protocolado, Autuado and Distribuído (Min. Gilmar Mendes) 23/10/2017; Procedente 30/09/2020; Publicado acórdão DJE 15/12/2020; Transitado em julgado 04/02/2021; decision published in DJE and DOU and baixa 08/02/2021","url":"https://portal.stf.jus.br/processos/abaAndamentos.asp?incidente=5294468&imprimir=true","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"Start of the joint judgment 23/09/2020; authors of the three actions","url":"https://noticias.stf.jus.br/postsnoticias/stf-comeca-julgar-acoes-sobre-exclusividade-da-uniao-na-exploracao-de-loterias/","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"Unanimous judgment of 30 September 2020, relator Gilmar Mendes","url":"https://www.migalhas.com.br/quentes/334173/stf-decide-que-uniao-nao-tem-exclusividade-na-exploracao-de-loterias","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"}],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/lottery/adpf-492-loterias-estaduais-monopolio-uniao/"},{"id":"GL-BR-0007","slug":"adpf-493-able-loterias-estaduais","title":"ADPF 493 - Associação Brasileira de Loterias Estaduais (Able) v. Decreto-Lei 204/1967","short_name":"ADPF 493 Able state lotteries","aliases":["adpf 493","able loterias estaduais"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"BR","state":"","court":"Supremo Tribunal Federal (Plenário)","level":"supreme"},"docket":"ADPF 493 (0012588-57.2017.1.00.0000)","filed":"2017-10-23","category":"lottery","case_type":"constitutional","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Associação Brasileira de Loterias Estaduais (Able); Estado de Minas Gerais as interested party","defendants":["União (Decreto-Lei 204/1967)"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":["Advocacia-Geral da União"],"judge":"Min. Gilmar Mendes (relator)"},"claims":["Non-reception of the federal lottery monopoly provisions of Decreto-Lei 204/1967"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2020-09-30","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"BRL","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://portal.stf.jus.br/processos/listarProcessos.asp?classe=ADPF&numeroProcesso=493","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":[],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"Companion action by the association of state lotteries, granted unanimously on 30 September 2020 together with ADPF 492; acórdão published 15 December 2020, final on 10 February 2021.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-BR-0006","GL-BR-0008"],"sources":[{"claim":"Docket: autuado 23/10/2017; procedente 30/09/2020 unanimous; acórdão 15/12/2020; trânsito 10/02/2021; Docket: Protocolado, Autuado and Distribuído por prevenção 23/10/2017; judgment suspended 23 and 24/09/2020; Procedente 30/09/2020 (unanimous, two provisions of DL 204/1967 not received); Publicado acórdão DJE 15/12/2020; Transitado em julgado 10/02/2021 (certidão 02/02/2021); baixa 12/02/2021","url":"https://portal.stf.jus.br/processos/abaAndamentos.asp?incidente=5294527&imprimir=true","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"Able as author; Minas Gerais admitted as interested party","url":"https://noticias.stf.jus.br/postsnoticias/stf-comeca-julgar-acoes-sobre-exclusividade-da-uniao-na-exploracao-de-loterias/","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/lottery/adpf-493-able-loterias-estaduais/"},{"id":"GL-BR-0008","slug":"adi-4986-pgr-v-loteria-mato-grosso","title":"ADI 4986 - Procurador-Geral da República v. Lei estadual 8.651/2007 and decrees of Mato Grosso (Lemat)","short_name":"ADI 4986 Mato Grosso lottery","aliases":["adi 4986","lemat stf"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"BR","state":"MT","court":"Supremo Tribunal Federal (Plenário)","level":"supreme"},"docket":"ADI 4986 (9989395-76.2013.1.00.0000)","filed":"2013-06-18","category":"lottery","case_type":"constitutional","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Procurador-Geral da República","defendants":["Governador e Assembleia Legislativa do Estado de Mato Grosso"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"Min. Gilmar Mendes (relator)"},"claims":["State law and decrees letting the Mato Grosso lottery (Lemat) run the same modalities as the Union invade federal competence"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2020-09-30","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"BRL","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://portal.stf.jus.br/processos/listarProcessos.asp?classe=ADI&numeroProcesso=4986","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":[],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"The PGR's challenge to Mato Grosso's state lottery rules was dismissed on the merits (improcedente) unanimously on 30 September 2020 in the same session as ADPFs 492 and 493: states may run lottery modalities in their territory. Acórdão 15 December 2020, final 9 February 2021.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-BR-0006","GL-BR-0007"],"sources":[{"claim":"Docket: autuado 18/06/2013; improcedente 30/09/2020 unanimous; acórdão 15/12/2020; trânsito 09/02/2021; Docket: Autuado and Distribuído to Min. Gilmar Mendes 18/06/2013 (no separate Protocolado entry); Improcedente 30/09/2020 'O Tribunal, por unanimidade, julgou improcedentes os pedidos formulados na ação direta'; Publicado acórdão DJE 15/12/2020 (Ata 214/2020); Transitado em julgado 09/02/2021; baixa 11/02/2021","url":"https://portal.stf.jus.br/processos/abaAndamentos.asp?incidente=4425284&imprimir=true","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"Object: Lei estadual 8.651/2007 and Decretos 273/2011, 346/2011, 784/2011, 918/2011 (Lemat)","url":"https://noticias.stf.jus.br/postsnoticias/stf-comeca-julgar-acoes-sobre-exclusividade-da-uniao-na-exploracao-de-loterias/","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/lottery/adi-4986-pgr-v-loteria-mato-grosso/"},{"id":"GL-CA-0003","slug":"atlantic-lottery-v-attorney-general-of-ontario-scc","title":"Atlantic Lottery Corporation, et al. v. Attorney General of Ontario","short_name":"Supreme Court appeal on Ontario pooled liquidity","aliases":["supreme court canada igaming ontario appeal","atlantic lottery v ontario supreme court","scc 42141","canadian lottery coalition supreme court appeal"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"CA","state":"","court":"Supreme Court of Canada","level":"supreme"},"docket":"42141","filed":"2025-12-10","category":"licensing-administrative","case_type":"appeal","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Appellants: Atlantic Lottery Corporation; British Columbia Lottery Corporation and Manitoba Liquor and Lotteries Corporation; Loto-Québec (added 2 April 2026)","defendants":["Attorney General of Ontario"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":""},"claims":["appeal as of right from Reference re iGaming Ontario, 2025 ONCA 770 (Criminal Code s. 207)"],"status":"appealed","status_date":"2026-10-07","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"CAD","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/dock-regi-eng.aspx?cas=42141","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":[],"regulator":"","press":["https://pokerfuse.com/latest-news/2025/12/appeal-challenges-ontario-ruling-on-international/","https://www.covers.com/industry/alberta-supreme-court-sports-betting-dfs-poker-motion-approved-april-2026"]},"summary":"Atlantic Lottery filed a notice of appeal as of right on 10 December 2025 against the Court of Appeal's 4:1 opinion that Ontario may let its players pool with players outside Canada; BCLC, Manitoba Liquor and Lotteries and (from 2 April 2026) Loto-Québec are co-appellants. Interveners are the Canadian Gaming Association, Flutter Entertainment, NSUS Group and the Attorney General of Alberta (leave 13 April 2026, in support of Ontario because the outcome bears on the iGaming Alberta Act); the Mohawk Council of Kahnawà:ke withdrew on 15 June 2026. The appeal was heard on 7 October 2026 and judgment is reserved. Until judgment Ontario poker and DFS remain ring-fenced to players in Ontario. Re-checked on 14 November 2026: judgment still reserved.","significance":"pending-landmark","related_cases":["GL-CA-0002","GL-CA-0001","GL-CA-0004"],"sources":[{"claim":"as-of-right appeal, parties, interveners, notice of appeal 10 Dec 2025, Loto-Québec added 2 Apr 2026, Alberta leave 13 Apr 2026, MCK withdrew 15 Jun 2026, hearing 7 Oct 2026, judgment reserved (docket as of 22 Oct 2026); re-checked 14 Nov 2026: no judgment entry after 7 Oct 2026, docket last updated 22 Oct 2026","url":"https://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/dock-regi-eng.aspx?cas=42141","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"Alberta's factum: outcome could impact the validity and operation of the iGaming Alberta Act","url":"https://www.covers.com/industry/alberta-supreme-court-sports-betting-dfs-poker-motion-approved-april-2026","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"}],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/licensing-administrative/atlantic-lottery-v-attorney-general-of-ontario-scc/"},{"id":"GL-CA-0002","slug":"reference-re-igaming-ontario","title":"Reference re iGaming Ontario","short_name":"Ontario pooled-liquidity reference (Court of Appeal)","aliases":["reference re igaming ontario","ontario court of appeal online poker international players","ontario poker shared liquidity court","2025 onca 770"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"CA","state":"ON","court":"Court of Appeal for Ontario","level":"appeal"},"docket":"COA-24-CV-0185; 2025 ONCA 770","filed":"2024","category":"licensing-administrative","case_type":"constitutional","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Lieutenant Governor in Council of Ontario (reference under Courts of Justice Act s. 8, Order in Council 210/2024); Attorney General of Ontario","defendants":[],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"Tulloch C.J.O., Gillese, van Rensburg, Hourigan and Dawe JJ.A.; van Rensburg J.A. dissenting"},"claims":["Criminal Code s. 207(1)(a): whether online gaming and betting remain lawful if Ontario users play against persons outside Canada"],"status":"appealed","status_date":"2025-12-10","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"CAD","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://www.ontariocourts.ca/coa/files/reference/COA-24-CV-0185/FE-NOTICE.pdf","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://ontariocourts.ca/coa/files/reference/ENDORSEMENT.COA-24-CV-0185.MAY.3.2024.pdf"],"regulator":"","press":["https://www.blg.com/en/insights/2025/11/ontario-court-of-appeal-decision-allows-international-pooled-liquidity-in-online-gaming","https://www.canadiangamingbusiness.com/2025/11/12/ontario-court-of-appeal-decision-november-2025/"]},"summary":"By Order in Council 210/2024 Ontario asked its Court of Appeal: 'Would legal online gaming and sports betting remain lawful under the Criminal Code if its users were permitted to participate in games and betting involving individuals outside of Canada?' Interveners included the Canadian Gaming Association, Flutter, NSUS (GGPoker), the Mohawk Council of Kahnawà:ke, the Attorney General of British Columbia (later withdrawn) and the Canadian Lottery Coalition (Atlantic Lottery, BCLC, Lotteries and Gaming Saskatchewan, Manitoba Liquor and Lotteries). After a three-day hearing from 26 November 2024, the court answered yes on 12 November 2025 by 4 to 1, on the assumptions that the current scheme is lawful, that other provinces' players join only by agreement, and that iGaming Ontario keeps conducting and managing the games. The lottery corporations appealed to the Supreme Court as of right.","significance":"pending-landmark","related_cases":["GL-CA-0001","GL-CA-0003"],"sources":[{"claim":"court file number, Order in Council 210/2024, reference question text, interveners, endorsement of 3 May 2024 (van Rensburg J.A.)","url":"https://ontariocourts.ca/coa/files/reference/ENDORSEMENT.COA-24-CV-0185.MAY.3.2024.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"decision released 12 November 2025, 4:1, three assumptions, hearing November 2024","url":"https://www.blg.com/en/insights/2025/11/ontario-court-of-appeal-decision-allows-international-pooled-liquidity-in-online-gaming","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"2025 ONCA 770 decided 12 November 2025, van Rensburg J.A. dissenting (recorded in SCC docket 42141)","url":"https://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/dock-regi-eng.aspx?cas=42141","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"hearing scheduled 26 to 28 November 2024; British Columbia withdrew September 2024","url":"https://www.covers.com/industry/explaining-ontario-dfs-poker-sports-betting-court-reference-september-2024","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"panel Tulloch, Gillese, van Rensburg, Hourigan, Dawe; file COA-24-CV-0185; decision 12 November 2025","url":"https://ca.vlex.com/vid/reference-re-igaming-ontario-1119187111","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"counsel for AG Ontario and interveners; van Rensburg J.A. dissent; majority answered question 1 yes under s. 207(1)(a)","url":"https://www.legal500.com/intelligence/canada/litigation-mediation-arbitration/court-of-appeal-summaries-november-10-%E2%80%93-14-2025","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"}],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/licensing-administrative/reference-re-igaming-ontario/"},{"id":"GL-CA-0038","slug":"r-v-furtney","title":"R. v. Furtney","short_name":"Supreme Court upholds provincial bingo licence conditions","aliases":["r v furtney","furtney 1991 scc bingo","criminal code 207 provincial licence delegation"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"CA","state":"ON","court":"Supreme Court of Canada","level":"supreme"},"docket":"[1991] 3 S.C.R. 89; 1991 CanLII 30 (SCC); SCC file 21759","filed":"","category":"licensing-administrative","case_type":"criminal","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Her Majesty the Queen (appeal by the accused; interveners: Attorneys General of Canada, Quebec, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland)","defendants":["Philip Furtney","Scott Furtney","Diane Roy","Hugh Chamney","Diamond Bingo Inc."],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":""},"claims":["validity of Criminal Code s. 207(1)(b) licensing and of Ontario's bingo licence terms and conditions as delegated criminal law"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"1991-09-26","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"CAD","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/dock-regi-eng.aspx?cas=21759","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":[],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"Bingo hall operators charged with counselling charitable licensees to violate the terms of their Ontario bingo licences argued that Parliament could not let provincial licence conditions define a crime. The Supreme Court held in 1991 that s. 207 of the Criminal Code validly exempts provincially licensed lotteries and that the provincial conditions are regulation of gaming, not criminal law; Parliament may make the application of its prohibition depend on provincial licensing. Furtney is the first case in every modern Canadian gambling judgment, from Earth Future Lottery to the Mohawk and iGaming Ontario decisions.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-CA-0039","GL-CA-0042","GL-CA-0001"],"sources":[{"claim":"citation [1991] 3 SCR 89, 1991 CanLII 30 (SCC); accused charged with counselling bingo licensees to violate licence terms and conditions","url":"https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1991/1991canlii30/1991canlii30.html","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"SCC file 21759 Philip Furtney, et al. v. Her Majesty the Queen: appeal from Court of Appeal for Ontario 821/88 (15 November 1989); heard 20 June 1991; judgment 26 September 1991, appeal dismissed, no order as to costs; interveners","url":"https://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/dock-regi-eng.aspx?cas=21759","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/licensing-administrative/r-v-furtney/"},{"id":"GL-CA-0040","slug":"lovelace-v-ontario","title":"Lovelace v. Ontario","short_name":"Casino Rama First Nations Fund upheld","aliases":["lovelace v ontario 2000 scc 37","casino rama profits first nations fund charter","non-status indians casino rama revenue supreme court"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"CA","state":"ON","court":"Supreme Court of Canada","level":"supreme"},"docket":"2000 SCC 37; SCC file 26165","filed":"","category":"licensing-administrative","case_type":"constitutional","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Robert Lovelace and others (non-band Aboriginal communities and Métis organisations)","defendants":["Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario","Chiefs of Ontario (intervening on the band side)"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":""},"claims":["Charter s. 15 equality: exclusion of non-band Aboriginal communities from the First Nations Fund of Casino Rama profits"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2000-07-20","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"CAD","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/dock-regi-eng.aspx?cas=26165","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":[],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"Ontario agreed that the profits of Casino Rama, opened in 1996 on the Mnjikaning (Rama) reserve, would go to a First Nations Fund for registered bands. Non-band Aboriginal communities and Métis organisations argued their exclusion breached s. 15 of the Charter. The Supreme Court of Canada unanimously dismissed the appeal in 2000: the Fund was an ameliorative programme targeting band communities and the exclusion did not demean the claimants' dignity. The decision underpins the Casino Rama and later OLG revenue-sharing arrangements litigated in OFNLP v. OLG.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-CA-0013","GL-CA-0039"],"sources":[{"claim":"neutral citation 2000 SCC 37 (CanLII URL follows from the citation)","url":"https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2000/2000scc37/2000scc37.html","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"SCC file 26165 Robert Lovelace (Ardoch Algonquin First Nation and Allies), et al. v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, et al.: Ontario Court (General Division) 23 July 1996 (files 9910/96, 10039/96), Court of Appeal C25391 5 June 1997; heard 7 December 1999; judgment 20 July 2000, dismissed, no order as to costs","url":"https://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/dock-regi-eng.aspx?cas=26165","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/licensing-administrative/lovelace-v-ontario/"},{"id":"GL-CA-0041","slug":"siemens-v-manitoba","title":"Siemens v. Manitoba (Attorney General)","short_name":"Manitoba VLT plebiscite law upheld","aliases":["siemens v manitoba 2003 scc 3","winkler vlt plebiscite supreme court","gaming control local option vlt act manitoba"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"CA","state":"MB","court":"Supreme Court of Canada","level":"supreme"},"docket":"2003 SCC 3; SCC file 28416","filed":"","category":"licensing-administrative","case_type":"constitutional","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Siemens and others, owners of a Winkler hotel with VLTs","defendants":["Attorney General of Manitoba"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":""},"claims":["division of powers and Charter ss. 2(b), 6, 7, 15 challenge to the Gaming Control Local Option (VLT) Act, which removed VLTs from Winkler after a municipal plebiscite"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2003-01-30","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"CAD","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/dock-regi-eng.aspx?cas=28416","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":[],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"After the town of Winkler voted in a plebiscite to ban video lottery terminals, Manitoba's Gaming Control Local Option (VLT) Act gave the vote legal effect and the Siemens family, whose hotel lost its VLT revenue, challenged the Act. The Supreme Court of Canada unanimously upheld it in 2003 as valid provincial legislation regulating gaming (property and civil rights, local matters) that did not infringe the Charter: there is no constitutional right to operate VLTs and the economic loss did not engage s. 7. The case is the authority for provinces' and municipalities' power to remove gambling machines.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-CA-0036","GL-CA-0038"],"sources":[{"claim":"neutral citation 2003 SCC 3 (CanLII URL follows from the citation)","url":"https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2003/2003scc3/2003scc3.html","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"SCC file 28416 David Albert Siemens, et al. v. Attorney General of Manitoba, et al.: Court of Queen's Bench CI-99-01-14717 (8 September 2000), Court of Appeal AI00-30-04743 (13 December 2000); heard 31 October 2002 with judgment from the bench, written reasons 30 January 2003; dismissed with costs to the respondents","url":"https://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/dock-regi-eng.aspx?cas=28416","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/licensing-administrative/siemens-v-manitoba/"},{"id":"GL-CH-0006","slug":"a-gaming-ltd-v-gespa-dns-sperre-2c-336-2021","title":"A.-Gaming Ltd. (Malta) gegen Interkantonale Geldspielaufsicht Gespa (DNS-Netzsperre), 2C_336/2021, 2C_337/2021, 2C_338/2021","short_name":"Bundesgericht confirms Gespa's DNS blocks of three Maltese betting sites","aliases":["Gespa Netzsperre Bundesgericht 2022","Comlot Sperrverfügung Beschwerde","2C_336/2021"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"CH","state":"","court":"Bundesgericht (Schweizerisches Bundesgericht), II. öffentlich-rechtliche Abteilung (on appeal from Interkantonales Geldspielgericht)","level":"supreme"},"docket":"2C_336/2021, 2C_337/2021, 2C_338/2021 (Interkantonales Geldspielgericht 23-20, 24-20, 25-20, all of 15 Feb 2021)","filed":"2021-04","category":"regulator-court","case_type":"operator-v-regulator","parties":{"plaintiffs":"A.-Gaming Ltd. and two other Maltese online gambling companies (MME Legal)","defendants":["Interkantonale Geldspielaufsicht Gespa (formerly Comlot)"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":""},"claims":["BGS art. 3 lit. a (Geldspiel)","BGS art. 86-88 (Netzsperre)","Wirtschaftsfreiheit; proportionality"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2022-05-18","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"CHF","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":"Bundesgericht costs CHF 17,000 (2C_336/2021) and CHF 15,000 each (2C_337/2021, 2C_338/2021); Geldspielgericht reduced the Comlot objection fee from CHF 10,375 to 6,000 (23-20) and from CHF 13,975 to 7,725 (24-20); reduced Geldspielgericht costs CHF 15,000 on the appellant in 23-20"},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://www.bger.ch/ext/eurospider/live/de/php/aza/http/index.php?highlight_docid=aza://18-05-2022-2C_336-2021&lang=de&type=show_document","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":[],"regulator":"","press":["https://law.ch/lawnews/2022/06/bundesgericht-netzsperren-gegen-auslaendische-anbieterinnen-von-online-geldspielen-bestaetigt/"]},"summary":"Comlot (now Gespa), the intercantonal lottery and betting supervisor, placed three Maltese operators' domains on its blocking list by general order of 8 October 2019 and confirmed the blocks on objection in May 2020; the Interkantonales Geldspielgericht dismissed their appeals on 15 February 2021. The Bundesgericht dismissed the further appeals: the games are Geldspiele, foreign operators without a Swiss licence cannot rely on economic freedom given the lack of effective Swiss supervision, and DNS blocking is proportionate even though it can be circumvented, since the legislature accepted partial effectiveness. Companion to the ESBK line (GL-CH-0005) for the lottery and sports-betting side.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-CH-0005","GL-CH-0011"],"sources":[{"claim":"BGer 2C_336/2021 of 18 May 2022: Beschwerde abgewiesen soweit darauf einzutreten ist, CHF 17,000; 2C_336/2021: Gerichtskosten Fr. 17'000; Comlot Allgemeinverfügung 8 Oct 2019 (BBl 2019 6627), Einspracheentscheid 7 May 2020; 2C_337/2021 and 2C_338/2021 each Fr. 15'000; 2C_336/2021 of 18 May 2022, A.-Gaming Ltd. (Malta, Glarner/Keller) v. Gespa, from Geldspielgericht 23-20 of 15 Feb 2021; Comlot Allgemeinverfügung 8 Oct 2019 (BBl 2019 6627), Einsprache 7 Nov 2019, Einspracheentscheid 7 May 2020; 'Die Beschwerde wird abgewiesen, soweit darauf einzutreten ist'","url":"https://www.bger.ch/ext/eurospider/live/de/php/aza/http/index.php?highlight_docid=aza://18-05-2022-2C_336-2021&lang=de&type=show_document","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"law.ch 28 June 2022: three cases, parties, reasoning","url":"https://law.ch/lawnews/2022/06/bundesgericht-netzsperren-gegen-auslaendische-anbieterinnen-von-online-geldspielen-bestaetigt/","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"2C_337/2021 (from Geldspielgericht 24-20, seven domains, costs CHF 15,000) and 2C_338/2021 (from 25-20, costs CHF 15,000) are separate judgments of 18 May 2022, each 'abgewiesen, soweit darauf einzutreten ist'; the three are not formally joined","url":"https://www.bger.ch/ext/eurospider/live/de/php/aza/http/index.php?highlight_docid=aza://18-05-2022-2C_337-2021&lang=de&type=show_document","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/regulator-court/a-gaming-ltd-v-gespa-dns-sperre-2c-336-2021/"},{"id":"GL-CH-0004","slug":"esbk-v-casino-spielbankenabgabe-kommissionen-2c-320-2012","title":"Eidgenössische Spielbankenkommission gegen X. (Spielbankenabgabe 2009, Kommissionen bei Tischspielen)","short_name":"Bundesgericht: table-game commissions are taxable gross gaming revenue","aliases":["Spielbankenabgabe Bruttospielertrag Kommission Bundesgericht","2C_320/2012"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"CH","state":"","court":"Bundesgericht (Schweizerisches Bundesgericht), II. öffentlich-rechtliche Abteilung","level":"supreme"},"docket":"2C_320/2012 (parallel judgments 2C_321/2012 and 2C_322/2012 of the same day, 31 Aug 2012, against two other casinos; not joined)","filed":"2012-04","category":"tax","case_type":"operator-v-regulator","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Eidgenössische Spielbankenkommission (ESBK / CFMJ) (appellant)","defendants":["X. (casino operator, anonymised)"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":""},"claims":["SBG art. 40 Abs. 2 (Bruttospielertrag, Spieleinsatz)","VSBG (Spielbankenabgabe)"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2012-08-31","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"CHF","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":"assessment of CHF 4,799,814.69 Spielbankenabgabe 2009 on CHF 11,962,962.65 gross gaming revenue reinstated; CHF 3,000 costs on the casino"},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://servat.unibe.ch/dfr/bger/2012/120831_2C_320-2012.html","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":[],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"The Bundesverwaltungsgericht had excluded the commissions casinos charge at poker and other table games from the gross gaming revenue on which the federal casino levy is assessed. On the ESBK's appeal the Bundesgericht held that 'Spieleinsatz' covers everything the player puts into the pot and that the commission is part of gross gaming revenue under the clear wording of the ordinance, annulling the lower judgment. The ruling governs the tax base of the Spielbankenabgabe, which funds the Swiss old-age pension scheme.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":[],"sources":[{"claim":"BGer 2C_320/2012 of 31 Aug 2012: Beschwerde gutgeheissen, BVGer judgment of 14 March 2012 annulled","url":"https://servat.unibe.ch/dfr/bger/2012/120831_2C_320-2012.html","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"2C_321/2012 is a separate judgment of 31 Aug 2012 (ESBK v. X., levy CHF 54,249,839.04 on GGR CHF 97,550,429.16, costs CHF 12,000) and 2C_322/2012 another (levy CHF 27,131,789.95 on GGR CHF 58,381,159.58, costs CHF 3,000); 2C_320/2012 page lists no joined cases","url":"https://www.bger.ch/ext/eurospider/live/de/php/aza/http/index.php?highlight_docid=aza://31-08-2012-2C_321-2012&lang=de&type=show_document","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"2C_320/2012 of 31 Aug 2012: ESBK appellant v. X.; BVGer Abteilung I judgment of 14 March 2012 annulled; assessment of 16 Dec 2010: Spielbankenabgabe 2009 Fr. 4'799'814.69 on Bruttospielertrag Fr. 11'962'962.65; Gerichtskosten Fr. 3'000 on the casino (Beschwerdegegnerin)","url":"https://www.bger.ch/ext/eurospider/live/de/php/aza/http/index.php?highlight_docid=aza://31-08-2012-2C_320-2012&lang=de&type=show_document","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/tax/esbk-v-casino-spielbankenabgabe-kommissionen-2c-320-2012/"},{"id":"GL-CH-0001","slug":"schweizer-casino-verband-v-esbk-texas-holdem-bge-136-ii-291","title":"Schweizer Casino Verband gegen X. und Eidgenössische Spielbankenkommission (Texas Hold'em Pokerturniere), BGE 136 II 291","short_name":"Bundesgericht: Texas Hold'em tournaments are gambling, casinos only","aliases":["Poker Geschicklichkeitsspiel Bundesgericht 2010","BGE 136 II 291 Poker","2C_694/2009"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"CH","state":"","court":"Bundesgericht (Schweizerisches Bundesgericht), II. öffentlich-rechtliche Abteilung","level":"supreme"},"docket":"2C_694/2009 (BGE 136 II 291)","filed":"2009","category":"licensing-administrative","case_type":"operator-v-regulator","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Schweizer Casino Verband (casino operators' association)","defendants":["X. (poker tournament organiser)","Eidgenössische Spielbankenkommission (ESBK / CFMJ)"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":""},"claims":["Spielbankengesetz (SBG) art. 3 (Glücksspiel v Geschicklichkeitsspiel)","Glücksspielverordnung art. 21"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2010-05-20","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"CHF","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://servat.unibe.ch/dfr/bge/c2136291.html","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":[],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"In 2007-2009 the ESBK and then the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (30 June 2009) classified commercial Texas Hold'em tournaments as games of skill, letting hundreds of poker events run outside casinos. On the casino association's appeal the Bundesgericht reversed: the tournaments are mixed games in which skill is not shown to outweigh the chance of the deal, so under the Spielbankengesetz they may be held publicly only in licensed casinos; organisers had to unwind their businesses. The 2019 Geldspielgesetz later allowed small cantonally authorised poker tournaments, but the ruling remains the Swiss test for skill versus chance.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-CH-0011"],"sources":[{"claim":"BGE 136 II 291 of 20 May 2010: appeal upheld, BVGer judgment of 30 June 2009 set aside, request of X. rejected","url":"https://servat.unibe.ch/dfr/bge/c2136291.html","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"Bundesrat / ESBK release 2010: poker tournaments outside casinos prohibited from now on","url":"https://www.admin.ch/de/nsb?id=33397","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"2C_694/2009, Urteil vom 20. Mai 2010, Schweizer Casino Verband v. X. and ESBK; BVGer judgment of 30 June 2009 set aside, request of X. of 16 Oct 2007 dismissed; Gerichtskosten Fr. 5'000 and Parteientschädigung Fr. 5'000 on X.; Bundesrat release of 2 June 2010 (https://www.admin.ch/de/nsb?id=33397): 'Die Organisation von Pokerturnieren ausserhalb von konzessionierten Spielbanken ist damit ab sofort verboten'","url":"https://www.bger.ch/ext/eurospider/live/de/php/aza/http/index.php?highlight_docid=aza://20-05-2010-2C_694-2009&lang=de&type=show_document","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/licensing-administrative/schweizer-casino-verband-v-esbk-texas-holdem-bge-136-ii-291/"},{"id":"GL-CW-0002","slug":"sbgok-v-gld-group-and-cyberluck-66400-curacao-2023","title":"SBGOK v GLD Group B.V. and Cyberluck Curaçao N.V. – EUR 66,400 unpaid winnings; joint liability of the master licence holder, Gerecht in eerste aanleg van Curaçao, 20 March 2023 (ECLI:NL:OGEAC:2023:297; parallel CUR202103242/243, ECLI:NL:OGEAC:2023:296)","short_name":"GLD Group / Cyberluck EUR 66,400","aliases":["gld group cyberluck judgment","curacao court cyberluck 66400"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"CW","state":"","court":"Gerecht in eerste aanleg van Curaçao (Court of First Instance of Curaçao)","level":"first-instance"},"docket":"CUR202103244","filed":"2021-10-25","category":"refund-claims","case_type":"individual","parties":{"plaintiffs":"SBGOK (assignee of a player)","defendants":["GLD Group B.V. (sub-licensee)","Cyberluck Curaçao N.V."],"class_counsel":["R.E.F.A. Bijkerk"],"defense_counsel":["A.C. Small"],"judge":"C.E.M. Nootenboom-Lock"},"claims":["unpaid winnings EUR 66,400; validity of the deed of assignment; annulment of the casino's general terms (art. 6:233 BW); breach of duty of care"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2023-03-20","money":{"fund":"","currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":"EUR 66,400 (or NAf equivalent) plus statutory interest from 25 January 2022, NAf 3,000 extrajudicial collection costs and NAf 7,159.64 costs of proceedings, jointly against Cyberluck and GLD Group"},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:OGEAC:2023:297","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":[],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"Representative of the dozens of SBGOK suits in 2022-2024: the Gerecht upheld the assignment, annulled general terms never made available to the player, found the casino in breach of its duty of care and held the master licence holder jointly liable. Non-payment of this judgment was the debt on which SBGOK petitioned for Cyberluck's bankruptcy in September 2024.","significance":"routine","related_cases":["GL-CW-0001","GL-CW-0010"],"sources":[{"claim":"judgment 20 March 2023, CUR202103244, operative part; dictum 4.1-4.2: EUR 66,400 + interest from 25 Jan 2022 + NAf 3,000; proceskosten NAf 7,159.64, hoofdelijk; 20 March 2023, CUR202103244, SBGOK (Bijkerk) v GLD Group B.V. and Cyberluck (Small), judge C.E.M. Nootenboom-Lock, EUR 66,400 jointly, interest from 25 January 2022; player had asked for loss limits and self-exclusion; parallel judgment ECLI:NL:OGEAC:2023:296 (CUR202103242 and CUR202103243) same day","url":"https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:OGEAC:2023:297","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"parallel judgment CUR202103242 and CUR202103243 of the same day","url":"https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:OGEAC:2023:296","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/refund-claims/sbgok-v-gld-group-and-cyberluck-66400-curacao-2023/"},{"id":"GL-CW-0004","slug":"sbgok-v-sg-international-webbyslot-curacao-2022","title":"SBGOK v SG International N.V. (Webbyslot, Antillephone licence 8048/JAZ) – EUR 65,000 withheld winnings: first-instance ruling of 13 June 2022 (ECLI:NL:OGEAC:2022:193) that online gambling debts are enforceable in Curaçao, reversed on appeal by the Joint Court on 28 July 2026 (ECLI:NL:OGHACMB:2026:237)","short_name":"Webbyslot: enforceability ruling reversed on appeal (2026)","aliases":["webbyslot curacao judgment","sg international sbgok","curacao gambling debt enforceable online casino"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"CW","state":"","court":"Gemeenschappelijk Hof van Justitie van Aruba, Curaçao, Sint Maarten en van Bonaire, Sint Eustatius en Saba (Joint Court of Justice)","level":"appeal"},"docket":"CUR2022H00195 (appeal); CUR202100742 (first instance)","filed":"2021-03-08","category":"refund-claims","case_type":"individual","parties":{"plaintiffs":"SBGOK (assignee of a Belgian player)","defendants":["SG International N.V. (operator of Webbyslot under Antillephone N.V.'s 1996 licence)"],"class_counsel":["R.E.F.A. Bijkerk"],"defense_counsel":["C.A.D. Jänsch"],"judge":"S.M. Christiaan"},"claims":["payment of about EUR 71,000 balance withheld for a 'duplicate account' (claim EUR 65,000)","invalidity of the Scottish choice-of-law clause; Curaçao law mandatory under licence conditions","art. 7A:1807 BW (unenforceable gaming debts) not applicable to licensed online gaming","annulment of general terms (art. 6:233(b) BW)"],"status":"dismissed","status_date":"2026-07-28","money":{"fund":"","currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":"first instance: EUR 65,000 plus statutory interest from 12 December 2019, NAf 3,000 collection costs, NAf 6,674.17 costs; on appeal (28 July 2026) claim dismissed and SBGOK ordered to pay SGI Cg 7,000 (first instance) and Cg 10,500 + Cg 2,800 + Cg 712.78 (appeal)"},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:OGHACMB:2026:237","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":[],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"An early merits judgment that fixed three rules later followed throughout the Curaçao case law: the licence conditions make Curaçao law govern the casino-player relationship (foreign choice-of-law clauses are invalid), winnings from licensed online gambling are legally enforceable despite art. 7A:1807 BW, and 'duplicate account' and similar terms are voidable if the operator cannot show the player had a reasonable opportunity to read them. On 28 July 2026 the Joint Court (ECLI:NL:OGHACMB:2026:237) reversed this judgment and dismissed the claim, holding the tick-box general terms validly incorporated; the 2022 first-instance rule on enforceable gambling debts is therefore no longer the last word.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-CW-0001","GL-CW-0005"],"sources":[{"claim":"judgment 13 June 2022, CUR202100742, facts and operative part; inleidend verzoekschrift op 8 maart 2021 ter griffie ingediend; 13 June 2022, CUR202100742, filed 8 March 2021, judge S.M. Christiaan, Bijkerk v Jänsch; Belgian player, accounts 25 June and 29 October 2019, balance EUR 71,000 December 2019, EUR 5,850 deposits refunded 17 January 2020, claim EUR 65,000 (letter 11 July 2020); Scottish choice-of-law clause (art. 34.1) rejected, Antillephone licence; EUR 65,000 plus interest from 12 December 2019, NAf 3,000, NAf 6,674.17","url":"https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:OGEAC:2022:193","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"Joint Court 28 July 2026 (CUR2022H00195, first instance CUR202100742) reversed the 13 June 2022 judgment, dismissed SBGOK's claim and ordered SBGOK to pay SGI's costs: Cg 7,000 (first instance), Cg 10,500 fee, Cg 2,800 court fee and Cg 712.78 service costs (appeal); the duplicate-account and assignment-ban clauses were upheld; final decision is the Joint Court judgment of 28 July 2026 (judges C.G. ter Veer, E.W.A. Vonk, J. de Boer); level should become appeal, case_type appeal; header: Zaaknummer hoger beroep CUR2022H00195, Zaaknummer eerste aanleg CUR202100742; dictum: vernietigt het bestrede","url":"https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:OGHACMB:2026:237","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/refund-claims/sbgok-v-sg-international-webbyslot-curacao-2022/"},{"id":"GL-CW-0012","slug":"cyberluck-v-knipselkrant-curacao-cramm-sublicensing-illegal","title":"Cyberluck Curaçao N.V. and others v Knipselkrant Curaçao (Nardy Cramm) – journalist may call Curaçao sub-licensing 'illegal'; Joint Court 11 October 2022 (ECLI:NL:OGHACMB:2022:104 and 105), Hoge Raad 22 December 2023 (ECLI:NL:HR:2023:1811 and 1812), Joint Court 20 May 2025 (ECLI:NL:OGHACMB:2025:109)","short_name":"Cyberluck v Cramm (sub-licensing 'illegal')","aliases":["nardy cramm cyberluck","knipselkrant curacao sublicentie illegaal","curacao journalist sublicensing illegal court","1xbet cyberluck ksa fine article"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"CW","state":"","court":"Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands, Caribbean cassation)","level":"supreme"},"docket":"HR 22/04566 and 22/04570; Hof CUR2021H00108 and CUR2022H00019; CUR2022H00309 and CUR2022H00340","filed":"2021","category":"licensing-administrative","case_type":"individual","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Cyberluck Curaçao N.V., its director, Pearl Trust & Management Corporation N.V. and associated persons","defendants":["Nardy Cramm, investigative journalist and blogger (Knipselkrant Curaçao)"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":["B.M.H. Fleuren (cassation, for Cramm)","M.A.M. Wagemakers (cassation, for Cyberluck)"],"judge":""},"claims":["rectification, removal and a ban on stating that Cyberluck issues 'illegal sub-licences' (after the Dutch Kansspelautoriteit on 4 January 2019 fined 1X Corp N.V. and Exinvest Limited jointly EUR 400,000 for offering games of chance without a licence on the sites 1xbet.com and xbet-1.com; the figure of 83 gambling sites comes from the journalist's caption, not from the KSA decision)","arts. 8 and 10 ECHR balance"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2025-05-20","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":"claims dismissed; Cyberluck ordered to pay costs (NAf 1,500 first instance, disbursements on appeal, EUR 2,555 in cassation per case)"},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:HR:2023:1812","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:OGHACMB:2022:104","https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:OGHACMB:2022:105","https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:OGHACMB:2025:109"],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"After the Gerecht ordered rectification in 2021, the Joint Court reversed in October 2022: whether a handful of licence holders may issue many sub-licences 'with worldwide very many game websites and an enormous turnover, without the licence holders being able to supervise properly, without any government supervision possible' is a matter of opinion a journalist may call illegal; the Hoge Raad dismissed Cyberluck's cassation appeals on 22 December 2023, and in May 2025 the Joint Court again rejected rectification and daily fines. The litigation documented the sub-licensing model later held unlawful in tort (GL-CW-0001) and replaced by the LOK.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-CW-0001","GL-CW-0010"],"sources":[{"claim":"Hoge Raad 22 December 2023, 22/04566: appeal dismissed (art. 81 RO); related case 22/04570; HR 22 December 2023, 22/04566 (ECLI:NL:HR:2023:1812) and 22/04570 (ECLI:NL:HR:2023:1811), Cyberluck c.s. incl. Pearl Trust & Management Corporation N.V. (Wagemakers) v journalist (Fleuren), art. 81 RO, costs EUR 355 + EUR 2,200 per case; Joint Court 11 October 2022 CUR202100501-CUR2021H00108 (appeal lodged 12 April 2021) and CUR202103601-CUR2022H00019: claims dismissed, costs NAf 1,500 + NAf 1,454.50; Joint Court 20 May 2025 CUR2022H00309 and CUR2022H00340: freedom of expression, trustee not entitled to","url":"https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:HR:2023:1812","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"Joint Court 11 October 2022, CUR2021H00108: rectification claims dismissed; facts on KSA fine of EUR 400,000 against 1X Corp; reasoning 4.7-4.16; facts 2.3: KSA decision 4 January 2019, joint fine EUR 400,000 on 1X Corp N.V. and Exinvest Limited for 1xbet.com and xbet-1.com; 2.4: caption of 1 February 2021 article says 83 goksites","url":"https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:OGHACMB:2022:104","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"Joint Court 20 May 2025, CUR2022H00309 and CUR2022H00340: freedom of expression; trustee not entitled to take over the claim","url":"https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:OGHACMB:2025:109","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"NEXT.io report of the 20 May 2025 ruling (parties named)","url":"https://next.io/news/regulation/curacao-court-upholds-journalists-right-sublicensing-illegal/","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"}],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/licensing-administrative/cyberluck-v-knipselkrant-curacao-cramm-sublicensing-illegal/"},{"id":"GL-CW-0024","slug":"fundashon-doing-good-korsou-v-gaming-control-board-house-raffle-2019","title":"Fundashon Doing Good Kòrsou v Stichting Gaming Control Board – raffle of a house among e-book buyers requires a lottery licence; regulator may publicly declare it illegal, Gerecht in eerste aanleg van Curaçao (summary proceedings), 5 April 2019 (ECLI:NL:OGEAC:2019:66)","short_name":"GCB may call house raffle illegal","aliases":["curacao house raffle e-book illegal lottery","gaming control board public warning lottery court"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"CW","state":"","court":"Gerecht in eerste aanleg van Curaçao (Court of First Instance of Curaçao)","level":"first-instance"},"docket":"Cur201901170","filed":"2019-04-03","category":"lottery","case_type":"operator-v-regulator","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Fundashon Doing Good Kòrsou (foundation running a fundraising raffle of a house among purchasers of an e-book)","defendants":["Stichting Gaming Control Board"],"class_counsel":["R.M.L. Conquet"],"defense_counsel":["M.F. Bonapart","P. Tweeboom"],"judge":"P.E. de Kort"},"claims":["injunction against the GCB's announced public statements (letter of 29 March 2019) that the raffle is an unlicensed lottery; penalty of NAf 2,500 per breach sought"],"status":"dismissed","status_date":"2019-04-05","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":"costs NAf 1,500"},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:OGEAC:2019:66","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":[],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"The court held that raffling a house among buyers of an e-book is a lottery requiring a licence and that the gambling supervisor may publicly warn that it is illegal. The only published Curaçao lottery enforcement ruling.","significance":"routine","related_cases":[],"sources":[{"claim":"summary judgment 5 April 2019, Cur201901170: claim, reasoning, dismissal","url":"https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:OGEAC:2019:66","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/lottery/fundashon-doing-good-korsou-v-gaming-control-board-house-raffle-2019/"},{"id":"GL-CW-0022","slug":"hotelmaatschappij-otrobanda-v-gaming-control-board-casino-licence-2019-2020","title":"Hotelmaatschappij Otrobanda N.V. v Stichting Gaming Control Board – casino operating without a renewed licence; GCB's tolerance creates no duty to facilitate; Gerecht (summary) 23 April 2019 (ECLI:NL:OGEAC:2019:93), Joint Court 19 May 2020 (ECLI:NL:OGHACMB:2020:133)","short_name":"Otrobanda casino v GCB","aliases":["otrobanda casino gaming control board court","curacao land based casino licence lawsuit gcb"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"CW","state":"","court":"Gemeenschappelijk Hof van Justitie van Aruba, Curaçao, Sint Maarten en van Bonaire, Sint Eustatius en Saba (Joint Court of Justice)","level":"appeal"},"docket":"CUR2019H00181; CUR201901002","filed":"2019-03-21","category":"licensing-administrative","case_type":"operator-v-regulator","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Hotelmaatschappij Otrobanda N.V. (hotel-casino operator, licence under the Landsverordening Casinowezen Curaçao from 17 December 2012)","defendants":["Stichting Gaming Control Board"],"class_counsel":["P. van den Hout","B. Jongmans"],"defense_counsel":["M.F. Bonapart"],"judge":""},"claims":["orders requiring the GCB to facilitate continued casino operation despite the lapse of the licence"],"status":"dismissed","status_date":"2020-05-19","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":"costs NAf 1,500 (first instance) and NAf 6,000 fee plus NAf 320.50 disbursements (appeal); appeal dismissed for lack of interest because the hotel and casino were sold at auction on 29 August 2019"},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:OGHACMB:2020:133","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:OGEAC:2019:93"],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"A land-based casino whose licence had lapsed argued that the GCB, which tolerated its continued operation, had to facilitate it. The Gerecht and the Joint Court rejected the claims: tolerance creates no obligation and the appellant had no remaining interest. Illustrates the GCB's supervisory role over Curaçao's hotel casinos under the Landsverordening Casinowezen, separate from the offshore online regime.","significance":"routine","related_cases":["GL-CW-0023","GL-CW-0024"],"sources":[{"claim":"Joint Court 19 May 2020, CUR2019H00181: appeal rejected; paras 2.2-2.4 and dictum: hotel sold at auction 29 August 2019, no remaining interest; costs NAf 6,000 + NAf 320.50; appeal lodged 13 May 2019","url":"https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:OGHACMB:2020:133","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"Gerecht 23 April 2019, CUR201901002: facts and dismissal; Gerecht 23 April 2019, CUR201901002, petition 21 March 2019, Hotelmaatschappij Otrobanda N.V. (van den Hout/Jongmans) v GCB (Bonapart); casino licence from 17 December 2012 expired 16 December 2015, tolerated continuation; claims dismissed, costs NAf 1,500; Joint Court 19 May 2020 CUR2019H00181 (appeal 13 May 2019) rejected the appeal","url":"https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:OGEAC:2019:93","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/licensing-administrative/hotelmaatschappij-otrobanda-v-gaming-control-board-casino-licence-2019-2020/"},{"id":"GL-CW-0023","slug":"emmazicht-v-gaming-control-board-howard-johnson-casino-licence-2017","title":"Emmazicht N.V. v Gaming Control Board (for the Minister of Finance) – refusal of a casino licence for the Howard Johnson Plaza hotel (70 rooms against the statutory 150-room minimum) upheld; closure order's compliance period extended, Gerecht in eerste aanleg van Curaçao (Lar), 13 April 2017 (ECLI:NL:OGEAC:2017:215)","short_name":"Emmazicht casino licence refusal","aliases":["howard johnson casino curacao licence refused","curacao 150 hotel rooms casino rule court"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"CW","state":"","court":"Gerecht in eerste aanleg van Curaçao (Court of First Instance of Curaçao) - Landsverordening administratieve rechtspraak (Lar)","level":"first-instance"},"docket":"Lar Cur201700120 and Cur201700121","filed":"2017","category":"licensing-administrative","case_type":"operator-v-regulator","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Emmazicht N.V.","defendants":["Stichting Gaming Control Board, for the Minister of Finance"],"class_counsel":["A.C. Small","D.M. Wildeman"],"defense_counsel":["M.R. Hammoud","A. Bakhuis"],"judge":"D. Haan"},"claims":["appeal against refusal of a casino licence (decision 13 January 2017) and against the closure order of 10 February 2017 (administrative coercion)"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2017-04-13","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":"costs NAf 1,400 and court fee NAf 150 to the claimant"},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:OGEAC:2017:215","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":[],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"The court upheld the licence refusal because the hotel had 70 rooms against the 150 required by the Landsverordening Casinowezen, but found the immediate closure order disproportionate for its short compliance period and set a new deadline of 15 May 2017. A compact statement of the statutory conditions for land-based casino licences in Curaçao.","significance":"routine","related_cases":["GL-CW-0022"],"sources":[{"claim":"judgment 13 April 2017, Lar Cur201700120 and 121: decisions, 150-room requirement, operative part; 13 April 2017, Lar Cur201700120 and -121, judge D. Haan, Emmazicht N.V. (Small/Wildeman) v GCB for the Minister (Hammoud/Bakhuis); application of 16 December 2015 refused 13 January 2017 (70 rooms against the 150-room requirement of the Landsbesluit Casinowezen), closure order 10 February 2017 (closure by GCB 17 February 2017); appeal against refusal unfounded, closure order annulled only as to the one-week compliance period, new deadline 15 May 2017; costs NAf 1,400 and court fee NAf 150","url":"https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:OGEAC:2017:215","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/licensing-administrative/emmazicht-v-gaming-control-board-howard-johnson-casino-licence-2017/"},{"id":"GL-DE-0520","slug":"bverwg-soziallotterie-imagewerbung-2025","title":"BVerwG, Urteil vom 12.02.2025, 8 C 2.24 (Imagewerbung einer Soziallotterie)","short_name":"Social lottery logo is advertising (BVerwG 2025)","aliases":["bverwg 8 c 2.24","soziallotterie werbung urteil 2025","werbebegriff glücksspielstaatsvertrag"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"DE","state":"RP","court":"Bundesverwaltungsgericht, 8. Senat","level":"supreme"},"docket":"8 C 2.24","filed":"2022","category":"advertising-marketing","case_type":"operator-v-regulator","parties":{"plaintiffs":"provider of a nationally known social lottery funding inclusion of people with disabilities","defendants":["Land Rheinland-Pfalz (Ministerium des Innern und für Sport); GGL position supported"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":["Loschelder (for the GGL side, per firm release)"],"judge":""},"claims":["§ 5 GlüStV 2021 Werbebegriff","Nebenbestimmungen zur Lotterieerlaubnis Juni 2022","Art. 5, 12 GG"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2025-02-12","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://www.bverwg.de/pm/2025/6","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":[],"regulator":"","press":["https://lotterydaily.com/2025/02/17/marketing/ggl-wins-lottery-advertising-court-case/"]},"summary":"After VG Mainz (11.05.2023, 1 K 359/22.MZ) and OVG Koblenz (19.03.2024, 6 A 10927/23.OVG), the BVerwG held that printing the lottery's logo on charitable information material is gambling advertising under § 5 GlüStV 2021 whenever an average observer sees at least a partial sales-promotion aim; the duty to pass advertising rules on to third parties is specific and proportionate. The plaintiff's revision failed, the Land's succeeded.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-DE-0516"],"sources":[{"claim":"press release 6/2025, instance chain, holding","url":"https://www.bverwg.de/pm/2025/6","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"8 C 2.24, Urteil 12.02.2025; VG Mainz 1 K 359/22.MZ (11.05.2023); OVG Koblenz 6 A 10927/23.OVG (19.03.2024); defendant Ministerium des Innern und fuer Sport Rheinland-Pfalz (permit of 03.06.2022); defendant's revision succeeded on condition 5.n, plaintiff's revision rejected","url":"https://www.bverwg.de/pm/2025/6","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"open":[],"status_read_from_records":true,"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/advertising-marketing/bverwg-soziallotterie-imagewerbung-2025/"},{"id":"GL-DE-0511","slug":"ovg-nrw-wettvermittlungsstelle-schulen-2024","title":"OVG Nordrhein-Westfalen, Urteil vom 06.11.2024, 4 A 2279/22 (Mindestabstand von Wettvermittlungsstellen zu Schulen)","short_name":"NRW betting shop 350 m from schools (OVG 2024)","aliases":["wettbüro mindestabstand schule nrw urteil","4 a 2279/22"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"DE","state":"NW","court":"Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen, 4. Senat","level":"appeal"},"docket":"4 A 2279/22","filed":"2021","category":"licensing-administrative","case_type":"operator-v-regulator","parties":{"plaintiffs":"operator of a Cologne betting shop opened in 2011","defendants":["Stadt Köln / Land NRW (licensing authority)"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":""},"claims":["AG GlüStV NRW Mindestabstand 350 m zu Schulen","Art. 49, 56 AEUV","Art. 12, 3 GG","Vertrauensschutz"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2024-11-06","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://www.justiz.nrw/node/5004","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":[],"regulator":"","press":["https://www.beck-aktuell.de/heute-im-recht/rechtsprechung/ovg-muenster-4a227922-mindestabstandsgebot-wettvermittlungsstellen-nrw-schulen-2024-11-07"]},"summary":"Confirming VG Köln, the OVG held that NRW may refuse a betting-shop permit where two public schools lie within 100 m and five schools and a youth centre within 200 m; the 350 m rule is proportionate, EU-compliant and not undermined by more permissive rules for other gambling. Revision was not admitted.","significance":"routine","related_cases":["GL-DE-0508"],"sources":[{"claim":"date, case number, facts, holding","url":"https://www.beck-aktuell.de/heute-im-recht/rechtsprechung/ovg-muenster-4a227922-mindestabstandsgebot-wettvermittlungsstellen-nrw-schulen-2024-11-07","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"4 A 2279/22, Urteil 06.11.2024; VG Koeln 24 K 4215/21 (05.10.2022); Bezirksregierung Koeln refusal of 27.07.2021; 350 m to schools (§ 13 Abs. 13 AG GluestV NRW); revision not admitted","url":"https://nrwe.justiz.nrw.de/ovgs/ovg_nrw/j2024/4_A_2279_22_Urteil_20241106.html","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"open":[],"status_read_from_records":true,"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/licensing-administrative/ovg-nrw-wettvermittlungsstelle-schulen-2024/"},{"id":"GL-DE-0553","slug":"vg-muenchen-wettvermittler-nebenbestimmungen-oasis-2025","title":"VG München, Urteil vom 20.02.2025, M 27 K 21.5228 (Nebenbestimmungen zur Erlaubnis einer Wettvermittlungsstelle, Teilnahmeverbot gesperrter Spieler)","short_name":"Betting shop licence conditions incl. OASIS (VG München 2025)","aliases":["m 27 k 21.5228","wettvermittlungsstelle nebenbestimmungen oasis"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"DE","state":"BY","court":"Verwaltungsgericht München, 27. Kammer","level":"first-instance"},"docket":"M 27 K 21.5228","filed":"2021","category":"licensing-administrative","case_type":"operator-v-regulator","parties":{"plaintiffs":"operator of a Wettvermittlungsstelle in Bavaria","defendants":["Freistaat Bayern (permit authority, Regierung von Oberbayern)"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":""},"claims":["§ 8 GlüStV 2021 Sperrsystem","§ 36 VwVfG Nebenbestimmungen","Art. 12 GG"],"status":"dismissed","status_date":"2025-02-20","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://www.gesetze-bayern.de/Content/Rtf/Y-300-Z-BECKRS-B-2025-N-2817?all=False","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":[],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"Representative administrative case on the OASIS duties of land-based betting shops: the operator's action against licence conditions, including the duty to exclude players listed in the central system, was dismissed.","significance":"routine","related_cases":["GL-DE-0552"],"sources":[{"claim":"date, case number, outcome","url":"https://www.gesetze-bayern.de/Content/Rtf/Y-300-Z-BECKRS-B-2025-N-2817?all=False","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"M 27 K 21.5228, Urteil 20.02.2025; defendant the permit authority acting through the Regierung von Oberbayern; conditions in Nr. 4 of the permit of 03.09.2021 (betting programme limit, age checks, OASIS checks on entry and before each bet, terminal placement, advertising limits, notification and inspection duties); action dismissed","url":"https://www.gesetze-bayern.de/Content/Document/Y-300-Z-BECKRS-B-2025-N-2817?hl=true","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"open":[],"status_read_from_records":true,"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/licensing-administrative/vg-muenchen-wettvermittler-nebenbestimmungen-oasis-2025/"},{"id":"GL-DE-0509","slug":"bayvgh-spielhalle-nuernberg-mindestabstand-2021","title":"BayVGH, Beschluss vom 17.06.2021, 23 ZB 20.1099 (Spielhalle Nürnberg Bahnhofsplatz, 250 m Mindestabstand)","short_name":"Bavaria arcade distance (BayVGH 2021)","aliases":["bayvgh spielhalle mindestabstand 250 m","23 zb 20.1099"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"DE","state":"BY","court":"Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof, 23. Senat","level":"appeal"},"docket":"23 ZB 20.1099","filed":"2018","category":"licensing-administrative","case_type":"operator-v-regulator","parties":{"plaintiffs":"operator of a Spielhalle at Bahnhofsplatz 9, Nürnberg","defendants":["Stadt Nürnberg (licensing authority)"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":""},"claims":["§ 25 Abs. 1 GlüStV i.V.m. Art. 9 Abs. 3 AGGlüStV (250 m)","§ 29 Abs. 4 GlüStV"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2021-06-17","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":"Streitwert 15,000 EUR"},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://www.gesetze-bayern.de/Content/Document/Y-300-Z-BECKRS-B-2021-N-16264?hl=true","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":[],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"Representative Bavarian case: leave to appeal against VG Ansbach (13.01.2020, AN 15 K 18.00653) was refused. The arcade fell short of Bavaria's 250 m minimum distance; a competitor's final licence could no longer be attacked; refusing an exception at an addiction-prone station location was not a discretionary error. Streitwert 15,000 EUR per instance.","significance":"routine","related_cases":["GL-DE-0507"],"sources":[{"claim":"decision text","url":"https://www.gesetze-bayern.de/Content/Document/Y-300-Z-BECKRS-B-2021-N-16264?hl=true","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"23 ZB 20.1099, Beschluss 17.06.2021; VG Ansbach AN 15 K 18.00653 (13.01.2020); Spielhalle Nuernberg, 250 m; Streitwert 15,000 EUR per instance","url":"https://www.gesetze-bayern.de/Content/Document/Y-300-Z-BECKRS-B-2021-N-16264?hl=true","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"open":[],"status_read_from_records":true,"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/licensing-administrative/bayvgh-spielhalle-nuernberg-mindestabstand-2021/"},{"id":"GL-DE-0535","slug":"bfh-buchmachersteuer-auslaendischer-veranstalter-2020","title":"BFH, Urteil vom 26.05.2020, IX R 6/19 (keine Buchmachersteuer für ausländischen Sportwettenveranstalter)","short_name":"No bookmaker tax for foreign operator (BFH 2020)","aliases":["ix r 6/19","buchmachersteuer § 11 rennwlottg ausländischer veranstalter"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"DE","state":"","court":"Bundesfinanzhof, IX. Senat","level":"supreme"},"docket":"IX R 6/19","filed":"2015","category":"tax","case_type":"operator-v-regulator","parties":{"plaintiffs":"foreign organiser of sports bets","defendants":["Finanzamt"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":""},"claims":["§ 11 RennwLottG Buchmachersteuer","§ 17 RennwLottG"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2020-05-26","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://app.omnilex.ai/de/sources/court-decision/de-rii--stre202010256/bfh-2020-05-26-ix-r-619","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":[],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"A foreign organiser of sports bets is not subject to the bookmaker tax of § 11 RennwLottG for pre-2012 periods; the case marks the boundary between the old horse-racing bookmaker tax and the 2012 sports-betting tax.","significance":"routine","related_cases":["GL-DE-0533"],"sources":[{"claim":"date, case number, holding","url":"https://app.omnilex.ai/de/sources/court-decision/de-rii--stre202010256/bfh-2020-05-26-ix-r-619","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary","note":"copy of the court text or official metadata on a mirror/database; official server not machine-readable or not addressable by case number at verification"},{"claim":"IX R 6/19, Urteil 26.05.2020; Hessisches FG 5 K 1627/15 (29./30.01.2019); EU-seated company offering online horse and dog bets, July 2012; revision rejected; ECLI:DE:BFH:2020:U.260520.IXR6.19.0","url":"https://www.bundesfinanzhof.de/de/entscheidung/entscheidungen-online/detail/STRE202010256/","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"open":[],"status_read_from_records":true,"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/tax/bfh-buchmachersteuer-auslaendischer-veranstalter-2020/"},{"id":"GL-DE-0506","slug":"bverwg-spielhallengesetz-berlin-2016","title":"BVerwG, Urteile vom 16.12.2016, 8 C 6.15 u.a. (Spielhallengesetz Berlin)","short_name":"BVerwG Berlin arcade law 2016","aliases":["bverwg 8 c 6.15","spielhallengesetz berlin bundesverwaltungsgericht","mindestabstand 500 meter spielhallen berlin urteil"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"DE","state":"BE","court":"Bundesverwaltungsgericht, 8. Senat","level":"supreme"},"docket":"8 C 6.15 (also 8 C 7.15, 8 C 8.15, 8 C 4.16, 8 C 5.16, 8 C 8.16)","filed":"2012","category":"licensing-administrative","case_type":"operator-v-regulator","parties":{"plaintiffs":"operators of four existing and one planned Spielhallen in Berlin","defendants":["Land Berlin"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":""},"claims":["Spielhallengesetz Berlin 2011 (Verbundverbot, 500 m Mindestabstand, Gerätehöchstzahl)","Art. 12 GG","Art. 56 AEUV"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2016-12-16","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://www.bverwg.de/161216U8C6.15.0","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://www.bverwg.de/161216U8C8.15.0"],"regulator":"","press":["https://www.goerg.de/de/aktuelles/veroeffentlichungen/19-12-2016/goerg-verteidigt-fuer-das-land-berlin-erfolgreich-das-spielhallenrecht-vor-dem-bundesverwaltungsgericht"]},"summary":"Following VG Berlin (01.03.2013, 4 K 336.12) and OVG Berlin-Brandenburg (11.06.2015, OVG 1 B 5.13), the BVerwG upheld the Berlin Spielhallengesetz: the new permit requirements, the ban on multi-site complexes, the 500 m minimum distance and the five-year transition period for existing arcades were lawful. The companion judgments covered operating-hour restrictions (8 C 8.15), the minimum distance (8 C 8.16) and transition protection after a change of operator (8 C 16.16).","significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-DE-0507","GL-DE-0508"],"sources":[{"claim":"case page with lower courts","url":"https://www.bverwg.de/161216U8C6.15.0","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"companion cases and ministry circular","url":"https://wm.baden-wuerttemberg.de/fileadmin/redaktion/m-wm/intern/Dateien_Downloads/Info_an_RPs_und_KLV_%C3%BCber_Entscheidungen_des_BVerwG_und_des_BVerfG_vom_16.12.2016_und_vom_7.3.2017.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"8 C 6.15, Urteil 16.12.2016; VG Berlin 4 K 336.12 (01.03.2013); OVG Berlin-Brandenburg OVG 1 B 5.13 (11.06.2015); parallel cases 8 C 7.15, 8 C 8.15, 8 C 4.16 (Rheinland-Pfalz), 8 C 5.16, 8 C 8.16","url":"https://www.bverwg.de/161216U8C6.15.0","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"open":[],"status_read_from_records":true,"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/licensing-administrative/bverwg-spielhallengesetz-berlin-2016/"},{"id":"GL-DE-0505","slug":"bverwg-internetverbot-online-casino-2017","title":"BVerwG, Urteile vom 26.10.2017, 8 C 18.16 und 8 C 14.16 (Internetverbot für Casino, Poker, Rubbellose bestätigt)","short_name":"BVerwG online casino ban 2017","aliases":["bverwg 8 c 18.16","online casino verbot bundesverwaltungsgericht 2017","internetverbot glücksspiel bverwg"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"DE","state":"BW","court":"Bundesverwaltungsgericht, 8. Senat","level":"supreme"},"docket":"8 C 18.16; 8 C 14.16","filed":"2010","category":"regulator-court","case_type":"operator-v-regulator","parties":{"plaintiffs":"online gambling operators based in Malta and Gibraltar","defendants":["Land Baden-Württemberg (Regierungspräsidium Karlsruhe)"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":""},"claims":["§ 4 Abs. 4 GlüStV Internetverbot","§ 9 Abs. 1 GlüStV Untersagung","Art. 56 AEUV"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2017-10-26","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://www.bverwg.de/261017U8C18.16.0","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://www.bverwg.de/pm/2017/74"],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"Reversing the VGH Mannheim (6 S 1426/14 of 08.09.2015 and 6 S 1406/14 of 27.05.2016; first instance VG Karlsruhe 3 K 386/10 and 3 K 576/10 of 03.11.2011), the Federal Administrative Court upheld prohibition orders against Maltese and Gibraltar operators: the ban on online casino games, online poker and online scratch cards is constitutional and compatible with EU free movement of services, and the licence requirement for online sports betting may be enforced against an operator that never applied. Reported as BVerwGE 160, 193.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-DE-0502","GL-DE-0525"],"sources":[{"claim":"press release 74/2017, lower courts, holding","url":"https://www.bverwg.de/pm/2017/74","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"8 C 14.16 (VG Karlsruhe 3 K 576/10, 03.11.2011; VGH Mannheim 6 S 1406/14, 27.05.2016; order of 04.02.2010) and 8 C 18.16 (VG Karlsruhe 3 K 386/10; VGH Mannheim 6 S 1426/14, 08.09.2015; order of 21.01.2010); revision admitted by 8 B 33.15 (27.07.2016); Land Baden-Wuerttemberg / Regierungspraesidium Karlsruhe","url":"https://www.bverwg.de/pm/2017/74","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"open":[],"status_read_from_records":true,"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/regulator-court/bverwg-internetverbot-online-casino-2017/"},{"id":"GL-DE-0541","slug":"bverwg-vergnuegungssteuer-einspielergebnis-2015","title":"BVerwG, Urteil vom 14.10.2015, 9 C 22.14 (Vergnügungssteuer: Umstellung vom Stückzahlmaßstab auf das Einspielergebnis)","short_name":"Amusement tax switch to takings (BVerwG 2015)","aliases":["9 c 22.14","vergnügungssteuer einspielergebnis übergangsregelung"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"DE","state":"","court":"Bundesverwaltungsgericht, 9. Senat","level":"supreme"},"docket":"9 C 22.14","filed":"2010","category":"tax","case_type":"operator-v-regulator","parties":{"plaintiffs":"gaming machine operator","defendants":["Gemeinde Ochtrup (NRW)"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":""},"claims":["Art. 105 Abs. 2a GG","Art. 3 Abs. 1 GG","Vertrauensschutz"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2015-10-14","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://rewis.io/urteile/urteil/0vf-14-10-2015-9-c-2214/","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":[],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"The BVerwG accepted the net-takings measure for municipal amusement tax on gaming machines and held that a transition rule may be required where operators need time to adjust after a change of tax base.","significance":"routine","related_cases":["GL-DE-0540","GL-DE-0542"],"sources":[{"claim":"date, case number, holding","url":"https://rewis.io/urteile/urteil/0vf-14-10-2015-9-c-2214/","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary","note":"copy of the court text or official metadata on a mirror/database; official server not machine-readable or not addressable by case number at verification"},{"claim":"9 C 22.14, Urteil 14.10.2015; OVG Muenster 14 A 692/13 (24.07.2014); VG Muenster 9 K 2028/10 (24.01.2013); Gemeinde Ochtrup, 20 % of Einspielergebnis from 01.01.2010; OVG judgment set aside and remanded","url":"https://www.bverwg.de/141015U9C22.14.0","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"open":[],"status_read_from_records":true,"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/tax/bverwg-vergnuegungssteuer-einspielergebnis-2015/"},{"id":"GL-DE-0540","slug":"bverfg-spielgeraetesteuer-stueckzahlmassstab-2009","title":"BVerfG, Beschluss vom 04.02.2009, 1 BvL 8/05 (Spielgerätesteuer, Stückzahlmaßstab)","short_name":"Per-machine amusement tax unconstitutional (BVerfG 2009)","aliases":["1 bvl 8/05","spielgerätesteuer stückzahlmaßstab","vergnügungssteuer spielautomaten bverfg"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"DE","state":"HH","court":"Bundesverfassungsgericht, Erster Senat","level":"supreme"},"docket":"1 BvL 8/05","filed":"2005","category":"tax","case_type":"constitutional","parties":{"plaintiffs":"gaming machine operator (Normenkontrollvorlage des FG Hamburg)","defendants":["Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg (Spielgerätesteuergesetz)"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":""},"claims":["Art. 3 Abs. 1 GG","Art. 105 Abs. 2a GG"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2009-02-04","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/DE/2009/02/ls20090204_1bvl000805.html","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":[],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"Taxing gaming machines by a fixed amount per machine (Stückzahlmaßstab) violates the equality principle now that stakes and takings can be recorded electronically; the Länder's competence for such local taxes is unaffected. Municipalities switched to revenue-based Vergnügungssteuer, producing the next wave of litigation (BVerfGE 123, 1).","significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-DE-0541","GL-DE-0542"],"sources":[{"claim":"Leitsätze and date","url":"https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/DE/2009/02/ls20090204_1bvl000805.html","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"1 BvL 8/05, Beschluss 04.02.2009; referral by FG Hamburg 26.04.2005, VII 293/99; § 4 Abs. 1 Hamburgisches SpStG incompatible with Art. 3 Abs. 1 GG","url":"https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/DE/2009/02/ls20090204_1bvl000805.html","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"open":[],"status_read_from_records":true,"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/tax/bverfg-spielgeraetesteuer-stueckzahlmassstab-2009/"},{"id":"GL-DE-0501","slug":"bverwg-sportwettenmonopol-nrw-2013","title":"BVerwG, Urteile vom 20.06.2013, 8 C 10.12, 8 C 12.12, 8 C 17.12 (Sportwettenmonopol NRW europarechtswidrig)","short_name":"BVerwG NRW sports betting monopoly 2013","aliases":["bverwg 8 c 10.12","sportwettenmonopol nrw europarechtswidrig"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"DE","state":"NW","court":"Bundesverwaltungsgericht, 8. Senat","level":"supreme"},"docket":"8 C 10.12","filed":"","category":"licensing-administrative","case_type":"operator-v-regulator","parties":{"plaintiffs":"private sports-betting intermediaries whose brokering to a private operator had been prohibited","defendants":["Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (Ordnungsbehörden)"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":""},"claims":["Art. 49, 56 AEUV (Niederlassungs- und Dienstleistungsfreiheit)","§ 9 GlüStV 2008 Untersagung"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2013-06-20","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://www.bverwg.de/8C10.12","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://www.bverwg.de/en/pm/2013/38"],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"The Federal Administrative Court ruled that the state sports-betting monopoly in North Rhine-Westphalia under the Lotteriestaatsvertrag and the GlüStV 2008 (in force until 30 November 2012) breached EU freedom of establishment and services because addiction prevention was not pursued consistently. Prohibition orders against private intermediaries based on the monopoly were unlawful for that period.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-DE-0500","GL-EU-0100"],"sources":[{"claim":"press release 38/2013, holding, companion cases","url":"https://www.bverwg.de/en/pm/2013/38","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"8 C 10.12, 8 C 12.12, 8 C 17.12 of 20.06.2013; municipalities Moenchengladbach, Muelheim an der Ruhr, Bochum; VG Duesseldorf 06.11.2007; OVG Muenster; prohibition of 18.04.2006 unlawful","url":"https://www.bverwg.de/en/pm/2013/38","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"open":[],"status_read_from_records":true,"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/licensing-administrative/bverwg-sportwettenmonopol-nrw-2013/"},{"id":"GL-DE-0517","slug":"ovg-sachsen-anhalt-nebenbestimmungen-online-erlaubnisse-2023","title":"OVG Sachsen-Anhalt, Beschlüsse vom 15.06.2023, 3 M 11/23, 3 M 14/23, 3 M 19/23, 3 M 24/23, 3 M 25/23 (Nebenbestimmungen zu Erlaubnissen für virtuelle Automatenspiele und Online-Poker)","short_name":"Licence conditions for online slots and poker (OVG Magdeburg 2023)","aliases":["nebenbestimmungen glücksspielerlaubnis eilverfahren","ggl werbebeschränkungen gericht 2023"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"DE","state":"ST","court":"Oberverwaltungsgericht des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt, 3. Senat","level":"appeal"},"docket":"3 M 11/23 u.a.","filed":"","category":"regulator-court","case_type":"operator-v-regulator","parties":{"plaintiffs":"licensed operators of virtual slot machines and online poker","defendants":["Gemeinsame Glücksspielbehörde der Länder (GGL)"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":""},"claims":["§ 4a ff. GlüStV 2021 Erlaubnis","§ 5 GlüStV 2021 Werbung","§ 6c GlüStV Einzahlungslimit"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2023-06-15","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://presse.sachsen-anhalt.de/wp-content/uploads/pdf/oberverwaltungsgericht_20_06_2023_Pressemitteilung_vorlaeufiger-rechtsschutz-gegen-nebenbestimmungen-zu-gluecksspielrechtlichen-erlaubnissen-fuer-virtuelle-automatenspiele-und-online-poker.pdf"],"regulator":"","press":["https://www.datev-magazin.de/nachrichten-steuern-recht/recht/vorlaeufiger-rechtsschutz-gegen-nebenbestimmungen-zu-gluecksspielrechtlichen-erlaubnissen-fuer-virtuelle-automatenspiele-und-online-poker-103440"]},"summary":"In five interim proceedings brought by newly licensed online slot and poker operators, the VG Halle had restored suspensive effect against licence conditions for lack of reasons; on the GGL's appeals the OVG reversed most of that. It held the bans on long-form advertising programmes, on advertising free-play casino games, on influencer marketing, on streamer advertising and on affiliate partners who also promote illegal gambling to be lawful, but found the total ban on outdoor advertising (billboards, Litfasssaeulen, public-transport vehicles) and the pre-21:00 ban at adults-only film screenings disproportionate. Final (press release 8/2023 of 20.06.2023).","significance":"routine","related_cases":["GL-DE-0518","GL-DE-0519"],"sources":[{"claim":"dates, case numbers, outcome","url":"https://www.datev-magazin.de/nachrichten-steuern-recht/recht/vorlaeufiger-rechtsschutz-gegen-nebenbestimmungen-zu-gluecksspielrechtlichen-erlaubnissen-fuer-virtuelle-automatenspiele-und-online-poker-103440","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"Pressemitteilung 8/2023 of 20.06.2023: on the GGL's Beschwerden the OVG changed the VG Halle orders; struck the total ban on outdoor advertising (billboards, Litfasssaeulen, public-transport vehicles) and the pre-21:00 cinema ban for adults-only screenings; upheld bans on Dauerwerbesendungen, free-play casino ads, influencer marketing, streamer advertising and affiliate partners advertising illegal gambling; final","url":"https://presse.sachsen-anhalt.de/wp-content/uploads/pdf/oberverwaltungsgericht_20_06_2023_Pressemitteilung_vorlaeufiger-rechtsschutz-gegen-nebenbestimmungen-zu-gluecksspielrechtlichen-erlaubnissen-fuer-virtuelle-automatenspiele-und-online-poker.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"open":[],"status_read_from_records":true,"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/regulator-court/ovg-sachsen-anhalt-nebenbestimmungen-online-erlaubnisse-2023/"},{"id":"GL-DE-0004","slug":"bgh-i-zr-216-25-leitentscheidung-online-casino","title":"BGH I ZR 216/25 – Leitentscheidungsverfahren zur Erstattung von Verlusten bei unerlaubtem Online-Glücksspiel","short_name":"BGH Leitentscheidung Online-Casino (Urteil 28.01.2027)","aliases":["bgh i zr 216/25","bgh leitentscheidung online glücksspiel","bgh urteil 28. januar 2027","bgh verhandlung 17. september 2026 online casino","olg stuttgart 5 u 113/25"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"DE","state":"","court":"Bundesgerichtshof, I. Zivilsenat","level":"supreme"},"docket":"I ZR 216/25","filed":"","category":"refund-claims","case_type":"appeal","parties":{"plaintiffs":"German player, online casino games 25.12.2020-03.09.2022, claim assigned to a litigation funder","defendants":["Malta-based online casino operator with MGA licence, no German permit in the period; German concession under GlüStV 2021 granted October 2022 (applied June 2021); named as Tipico Games Ltd by beck-aktuell and LTO, anonymised in the BGH documents"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"I. Zivilsenat"},"claims":["§ 812 Abs. 1 S. 1 Alt. 1 BGB","§ 134 BGB i.V.m. § 4 Abs. 4 GlüStV 2012 und § 4 Abs. 4 GlüStV 2021","§ 823 Abs. 2 BGB i.V.m. § 4 Abs. 4 GlüStV 2012, § 852 BGB (Verjährung)"],"status":"appealed","status_date":"2026-09-17","money":{"fund":"","currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":"","payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":"10092"},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":"2027-01-28"},"links":{"docket":"https://www.bundesgerichtshof.de/SharedDocs/Termine/DE/Termine/IZR216-25.html","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://www.bundesgerichtshof.de/SharedDocs/Termine/DE/Termine/IZR216-25.html"],"regulator":"","press":["https://www.cllb.de/online-gluecksspiel/online-gluecksspiel-bgh-verkuendet-urteile-i-zr-216-25-und-i-zr-78-25-am-28-01-2027/","https://rechtsanwaltkaufmann.de/bank-und-kapitalmarktrecht/gluecksspielrecht-anwalt"]},"summary":"LG Heilbronn (12.02.2025, 8 O 128/24) granted EUR 10,092; OLG Stuttgart (29.09.2025, 5 U 113/25) dismissed the appeal, holding the contracts void under § 134 BGB for the ban period and the licence period, § 817 S. 2 BGB no bar, German jurisdiction despite the funder, pre-2021 enrichment claims time-barred but recoverable through § 852 BGB with § 823 Abs. 2 BGB. The BGH stayed the Revision on 17 February 2026 pending C-440/23, and after the CJEU judgment designated it on 19 May 2026 as Leitentscheidungsverfahren under § 552b ZPO, intending to stay all comparable cases. Hearing 17 September 2026; verdict announced for 28 January 2027, 8:45. Law-firm observers report the Senate indicated that § 4 Abs. 4 GlüStV 2012 is a Schutzgesetz and that litigation funding does not affect jurisdiction.","significance":"pending-landmark","related_cases":["GL-EU-0001","GL-DE-0001","GL-DE-0005","GL-DE-0025"],"sources":[{"claim":"facts, amount, Vorinstanzen, stay 17.02.2026, § 552b ZPO 19.05.2026, hearing 17.09.2026, verdict 28.01.2027; Terminhinweis: facts, Vorinstanzen, stay 17.02.2026, Leitentscheidungsbeschluss 19.05.2026, hearing 17.09.2026, Verkündung 28.01.2027 8:45","url":"https://www.bundesgerichtshof.de/SharedDocs/Termine/DE/Termine/IZR216-25.html","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"Senate's indications at the hearing (law-firm report)","url":"https://www.cllb.de/online-gluecksspiel/online-gluecksspiel-bgh-verkuendet-urteile-i-zr-216-25-und-i-zr-78-25-am-28-01-2027/","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"Beschluss 19.05.2026, ECLI:DE:BGH:2026:190526BIZR216.25.0: 'Das Verfahren I ZR 216/25 wird zum Leitentscheidungsverfahren bestimmt'; operator obtained a German concession in October 2022 on an application of June 2021; a three-digit number of comparable Revisionen pending; five legal questions listed","url":"https://gesetze.co/urteile/I_ZR_216-25","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary","note":"mirror of the BGH decision text; the BGH decision database could not be queried by case number"},{"claim":"operator named as Tipico Games Ltd","url":"https://www.beck-aktuell.de/heute-im-recht/rechtsgeschehen/bgh-IZR21625-rueckerstattung-verluste-online-gluecksspiele-verbraucherschutz-eugh-2026-09-18","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"}],"open":["the Senate's indications at the hearing of 17.09.2026 are law-firm reports, not a published decision","operator name only from press (beck-aktuell, LTO)"],"status_read_from_records":true,"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/refund-claims/bgh-i-zr-216-25-leitentscheidung-online-casino/"},{"id":"GL-DE-0009","slug":"olg-koeln-19-u-51-22","title":"OLG Köln 19 U 51/22 (31.10.2022)","short_name":"OLG Köln 19 U 51/22","aliases":["olg köln online casino urteil","19 u 51/22"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"DE","state":"","court":"Oberlandesgericht Köln","level":"appeal"},"docket":"19 U 51/22","filed":"","category":"refund-claims","case_type":"appeal","parties":{"plaintiffs":"German player","defendants":["unlicensed online gambling operator (Malta)"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":""},"claims":["§ 812 Abs. 1 S. 1 Alt. 1 BGB (Bereicherungsrecht)","§ 134 BGB i.V.m. § 4 Abs. 4 GlüStV 2012 (Nichtigkeit)","§ 823 Abs. 2 BGB i.V.m. § 4 GlüStV, § 284 StGB"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2022-10-31","money":{"fund":"","currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":"","payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":"58517.70"},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://nrwe.justiz.nrw.de/olgs/koeln/j2022/19_U_51_22_Urteil_20221031.html","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://nrwe.justiz.nrw.de/olgs/koeln/j2022/19_U_51_22_Urteil_20221031.html"],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"Poker and blackjack 17.03.2014-12.06.2020, deposits minus payouts EUR 58,517.70. LG Bonn (26.04.2022, 7 O 178/21) had dismissed; the OLG Köln reversed: contract void under § 134 BGB (§ 4 Abs. 4 GlüStV 2012), § 817 S. 2 BGB not met and in any case teleologically reduced, §§ 762, 814, 242 BGB no bar, parallel tort claim under § 823 Abs. 2 BGB with § 4 GlüStV and § 284 StGB, no contributory fault, limitation from knowledge in 2021, German law under Rome I. Revision not admitted (ECLI:DE:OLGK:2022:1031.19U51.22.00).","significance":"precedent","related_cases":[],"sources":[{"claim":"full text; full text: LG Bonn 26.04.2022, 7 O 178/21; EUR 58,517.70; play 17.03.2014-12.06.2020; Revision not admitted; limitation began 21.12.2021","url":"https://nrwe.justiz.nrw.de/olgs/koeln/j2022/19_U_51_22_Urteil_20221031.html","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"open":[],"status_read_from_records":true,"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/refund-claims/olg-koeln-19-u-51-22/"},{"id":"GL-DE-0023","slug":"olg-brandenburg-2-u-24-25","title":"OLG Brandenburg 2 U 24/25 (16.06.2025)","short_name":"OLG Brandenburg 2 U 24/25","aliases":["2 u 24/25"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"DE","state":"","court":"Brandenburgisches Oberlandesgericht","level":"appeal"},"docket":"2 U 24/25","filed":"","category":"refund-claims","case_type":"appeal","parties":{"plaintiffs":"German player","defendants":["unlicensed online gambling operator (Malta)"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":""},"claims":["§ 812 Abs. 1 S. 1 Alt. 1 BGB (Bereicherungsrecht)","§ 134 BGB i.V.m. § 4 Abs. 4 GlüStV 2012 (Nichtigkeit)","§ 823 Abs. 2 BGB i.V.m. § 4 GlüStV, § 284 StGB"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2025-06-16","money":{"fund":"","currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":"","payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":"505.98"},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":[],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"Judgment of 16 June 2025 (ECLI:DE:OLGBB:2025:0616.2U24.25.00) on appeal from LG Frankfurt (Oder) (05.07.2024, 11 O 156/23): the Malta-licensed online casino operator must pay EUR 505.98 plus interest from 21.01.2024; the rest of the claim (pre-litigation fees, earlier interest) is dismissed. The player may sue in his own name despite a security assignment to a funder (gewillkürte Prozessstandschaft); contracts void under § 134 BGB (§ 4 Abs. 1, 4 GlüStV 2012); § 817 S. 2, § 814, § 762 BGB rejected; § 823 Abs. 2 BGB with § 4 Abs. 4 GlüStV 2012 and § 284 StGB; claims before 01.01.2020 time-barred but § 852 BGB available; no referral or stay; Revision not admitted. Play April 2014 to October 2020.","significance":"routine","related_cases":[],"sources":[{"claim":"docket, date, holding","url":"https://casinobeats.com/de/2025/07/29/neues-olg-urteil-spieler-duerfen-verluste-bei-illegalen-online-casinos-zurueckfordern/","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"full text: LG Frankfurt (Oder) 05.07.2024, 11 O 156/23; EUR 505.98; play April 2014-October 2020; Revision not admitted; § 852 BGB","url":"https://gerichtsentscheidungen.brandenburg.de/gerichtsentscheidung/26878","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"open":[],"status_read_from_records":true,"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/refund-claims/olg-brandenburg-2-u-24-25/"},{"id":"GL-DE-0036","slug":"lg-muenchen-i-8-o-16058-20-abgewiesen","title":"LG München I 8 O 16058/20 (13.04.2021) – Klage abgewiesen","short_name":"LG München I 8 O 16058/20","aliases":["8 o 16058/20","online casino klage abgewiesen"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"DE","state":"","court":"Landgericht München I","level":"first-instance"},"docket":"8 O 16058/20","filed":"","category":"refund-claims","case_type":"individual","parties":{"plaintiffs":"German player","defendants":["unlicensed online gambling operator"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":""},"claims":["§ 812 Abs. 1 S. 1 Alt. 1 BGB (Bereicherungsrecht)","§ 134 BGB i.V.m. § 4 Abs. 4 GlüStV 2012 (Nichtigkeit)","§ 823 Abs. 2 BGB i.V.m. § 4 GlüStV, § 284 StGB"],"status":"dismissed","status_date":"2021-04-13","money":{"fund":"","currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":"","payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":"5128.35"},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":[],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"Endurteil of 13 April 2021: claim for EUR 5,128.35 for online gambling in November 2020 with a Malta-based operator without German licence dismissed. Although the contract breached § 4 Abs. 4 GlüStV, § 817 S. 2 BGB bars restitution because the player knowingly or recklessly took part in illegal gambling (§ 285 StGB); alternatively § 242 BGB; the court doubted that § 4 Abs. 4 GlüStV and § 284 StGB are Schutzgesetze and saw no causal loss. The minority line later rejected by the OLGs.","significance":"routine","related_cases":[],"sources":[{"claim":"docket, date, reasoning","url":"https://www.haufe.de/recht/weitere-rechtsgebiete/allg-zivilrecht/geld-zurueck-bei-verlusten-in-online-casinos-olg-entscheidet_208_589798.html","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"listed as dismissal","url":"https://www.staudt.law/news/aktuelle-urteile-online-casino","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"full text: dismissal, EUR 5,128.35, November 2020, § 817 S. 2, § 242, § 823 Abs. 2 BGB","url":"https://www.gesetze-bayern.de/Content/Document/Y-300-Z-BECKRS-B-2021-N-11488","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"open":[],"status_read_from_records":true,"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/refund-claims/lg-muenchen-i-8-o-16058-20-abgewiesen/"},{"id":"GL-ES-0003","slug":"stc-169-2023-cuestion-inconstitucionalidad-art-7-2-ley-13-2011","title":"STC 169/2023, cuestión de inconstitucionalidad 5949-2022 on art. 7.2 Ley 13/2011 de regulación del juego","short_name":"Constitutional Court: gambling-advertising delegation question lapses after Ley 23/2022","aliases":["stc 169/2023","cuestion de inconstitucionalidad 5949-2022","articulo 7.2 ley 13/2011 publicidad juego"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"ES","state":"","court":"Tribunal Constitucional (Pleno)","level":"supreme"},"docket":"cuestión de inconstitucionalidad 5949-2022","filed":"2022-09-09","category":"advertising-marketing","case_type":"constitutional","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Sección Tercera de la Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo del Tribunal Supremo (referring court, auto of 14 July 2022)","defendants":["Abogado del Estado","Fiscal General del Estado","Organización Nacional de Ciegos Españoles (ONCE)","Asociación Española de Juego Digital"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"ponente Inmaculada Montalbán Huertas"},"claims":["reserva de ley (art. 53.1 CE) in relation to freedom of enterprise (art. 38 CE)"],"status":"dismissed","status_date":"2023-11-22","money":{"fund":"","currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":"","payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://www.boe.es/diario_boe/txt.php?id=BOE-A-2023-25990","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://www.boe.es/diario_boe/txt.php?id=BOE-A-2023-25990","https://hj.tribunalconstitucional.es/HJ/es/Resolucion/GetDocumentResolucion/29841"],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"In the Jdigital proceedings the Supreme Court asked whether art. 7.2 Ley 13/2011, which left the conditions and limits of gambling advertising to regulation, was a blank delegation contrary to the reserva de ley. The Constitutional Court declared the question extinguished for loss of object: Ley 23/2022 of 2 November 2022 had inserted art. 7 bis (general principles for gambling advertising, promotion and sponsorship) into Ley 13/2011, so the doubt no longer governed the pending case. The Supreme Court then decided the decree challenge itself (STS 527/2024).","significance":"routine","related_cases":["GL-ES-0001"],"sources":[{"claim":"STC 169/2023 of 22 November 2023, cuestión 5949-2022, parties, extinction for loss of object, Ley 23/2022 art. 7 bis","url":"https://www.boe.es/diario_boe/txt.php?id=BOE-A-2023-25990","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"full text (TC case-law database, docx)","url":"https://hj.tribunalconstitucional.es/HJ/es/Resolucion/GetDocumentResolucion/29841","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/advertising-marketing/stc-169-2023-cuestion-inconstitucionalidad-art-7-2-ley-13-2011/"},{"id":"GL-ES-0004","slug":"stc-32-2012-loteria-instantanea-conflictos-competencia-andalucia-cataluna","title":"STC 32/2012: conflictos positivos de competencia 4124-1999, 4216-1999 and 3029-2006 (Junta de Andalucía and Generalitat de Cataluña v Estado) on the national instant lottery (RD 844/1999 and RD 1336/2005, ONCE)","short_name":"Constitutional Court upholds State competence over national instant lotteries","aliases":["stc 32/2012","loteria instantanea competencias","once loteria presorteada tribunal constitucional"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"ES","state":"","court":"Tribunal Constitucional (Pleno)","level":"supreme"},"docket":"conflictos positivos de competencia 4124-1999, 4216-1999, 3029-2006","filed":"1999","category":"lottery","case_type":"constitutional","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Consejo de Gobierno de la Junta de Andalucía; Generalitat de Cataluña","defendants":["Estado (Abogado del Estado)"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"Ponente Pascual Sala Sánchez (Presidente del Tribunal)"},"claims":["regional exclusive competence over casinos, games and betting vs State competence over Hacienda general (art. 149.1.14 CE)","financial autonomy of the Autonomous Communities"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2012-03-15","money":{"fund":"","currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":"","payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://www.boe.es/diario_boe/txt.php?id=BOE-A-2012-4995","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://www.boe.es/diario_boe/txt.php?id=BOE-A-2012-4995"],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"Andalusia and Catalonia challenged the royal decrees authorising a national instant (pre-drawn) lottery, first for the State lottery body (RD 844/1999) and then for ONCE (RD 1336/2005), arguing that gambling is an exclusive regional competence and that the new product drained regional gambling-tax revenue. The Court dismissed all three conflicts: national lotteries fall under the State's general-treasury power, lost regional revenue does not breach financial autonomy, and ONCE's social status exempted the State from consulting the regions. The judgment anchors the State/region split that still shapes Ley 13/2011 (State online, regions land-based).","significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-EU-0326"],"sources":[{"claim":"STC 32/2012 of 15 March 2012, conflicts 4124-1999, 4216-1999, 3029-2006, parties, fallo (desestimar); STC 32/2012 of 15 March 2012 (BOE 88, 12 April 2012), conflicts 4124-1999, 4216-1999, 3029-2006, RD 844/1999 and RD 1336/2005, fallo desestimar","url":"https://www.boe.es/diario_boe/txt.php?id=BOE-A-2012-4995","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/lottery/stc-32-2012-loteria-instantanea-conflictos-competencia-andalucia-cataluna/"},{"id":"GL-EU-0002","slug":"eugh-c-530-24-tipico-sportwetten","title":"C-530/24 (Vorlage BGH I ZR 90/23, Tipico)","short_name":"EuGH C-530/24 (Sportwetten, Tipico)","aliases":["eugh sportwetten","eugh tipico","eugh c-530/24","eugh urteil sportwetten rückzahlung","tipico geld zurück eugh"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"EU","state":"","court":"Court of Justice of the European Union","level":"eu"},"docket":"C-530/24","filed":"2024-07-25","category":"refund-claims","case_type":"individual","parties":{"plaintiffs":"German sports bettor (2013 to 9 October 2020), claim bought by the claims purchaser Gamesright","defendants":["Tipico Co. Ltd (Malta)"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"AG Nicholas Emiliou (opinion 19.03.2026)"},"claims":["Art. 56 TFEU","§ 134 BGB i.V.m. § 4 Abs. 1, 4, 5 GlüStV 2012","§ 812 Abs. 1 S. 1 BGB"],"status":"filed","status_date":"2026-03-19","money":{"fund":"","currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":"","payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":"3719.26"},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://curia.europa.eu/juris/documents.jsf?num=C-530/24","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://www.bundesgerichtshof.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/DE/2024/2024155.html"],"regulator":"","press":["https://www.beck-aktuell.de/heute-im-recht/rechtsprechung/eugh-generalanwalt-c53024-unerlaubte-sportwetten-tipico-wetteinsaetze-rueckerstattung-2026-03-19"]},"summary":"The BGH asked whether the freedom to provide services precludes treating sports betting contracts as void where the Malta-based operator had applied for a German concession in a procedure later found contrary to EU law and only received its licence on 9 October 2020. Advocate General Emiliou proposed on 19 March 2026 that an operator without the required German licence can be obliged to refund stakes, unless the authorities gave precise, unconditional and consistent assurances that the licence requirement would not be enforced for the time being. The judgment was still pending on 14 November 2026; the BGH case and two parallel Revisionen are stayed.","significance":"pending-landmark","related_cases":["GL-DE-0003","GL-DE-0002","GL-DE-0024"],"sources":[{"claim":"referral by BGH Beschluss 25.07.2024, I ZR 90/23","url":"https://www.bundesgerichtshof.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/DE/2024/2024155.html","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"AG opinion 19.03.2026, content","url":"https://www.beck-aktuell.de/heute-im-recht/rechtsprechung/eugh-generalanwalt-c53024-unerlaubte-sportwetten-tipico-wetteinsaetze-rueckerstattung-2026-03-19","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"AG opinion 19.03.2026, PR 43/26: Tipico, bets 2013 to 09.10.2020, German licence 09.10.2020; refund obligation with exception for precise, unconditional and consistent assurances of non-enforcement","url":"https://curia.europa.eu/site/upload/docs/application/pdf/2026-03/cp260043en.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"open":["date the reference was registered at the Court not retrieved (curia case page did not render)","judgment date not announced as of 14.11.2026"],"status_read_from_records":true,"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/refund-claims/eugh-c-530-24-tipico-sportwetten/"},{"id":"GL-EU-0001","slug":"eugh-c-440-23-european-lotto-and-betting","title":"C-440/23 European Lotto and Betting Ltd and Deutsche Lotto- und Sportwetten Ltd","short_name":"EuGH C-440/23 (Online-Casino, Malta-Vorlage)","aliases":["eugh c-440/23","eugh urteil online casino 2026","eugh malta vorlage glücksspiel","european lotto and betting eugh"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"EU","state":"","court":"Court of Justice of the European Union","level":"eu"},"docket":"C-440/23","filed":"2023-07-11","category":"refund-claims","case_type":"individual","parties":{"plaintiffs":"German-resident player (claims assigned to a company that pursued the action before the Maltese court); play June 2019 to July 2021","defendants":["European Lotto and Betting Ltd","Deutsche Lotto- und Sportwetten Ltd"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"AG Nicholas Emiliou (opinion)"},"claims":["Art. 56 TFEU (freedom to provide services)","§ 4 Abs. 4 GlüStV 2012 (German internet ban)","nullity and restitution of lost stakes under German law"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2026-04-16","money":{"fund":"","currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":"","payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://curia.europa.eu/juris/documents.jsf?num=C-440/23","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://curia.europa.eu/site/upload/docs/application/pdf/2026-04/cp260053en.pdf"],"regulator":"","press":["https://www.lto.de/recht/presseschau/p/presseschau-2026-04-17-gluecksspiel-eugh-augsburg-gablingen-jva-haber-verfahren","https://www.tagesspiegel.de/wirtschaft/verbraucher-milliardenmarkt-glucksspiel-online-angebote-vor-gericht-15481636.html","https://www.staudt.law/news/eugh-urteil-c-440-23-online-casino"]},"summary":"A Maltese court asked whether Germany's general ban on online casino games, virtual slots and betting on lottery results (GlüStV 2012) could be applied to Malta-licensed operators and whether contracts could be void with restitution of stakes. On 16 April 2026 the Court held that EU law does not preclude such a prohibition aimed at channelling gambling and fighting parallel markets, nor the nullity of the contracts, nor a civil action for restitution; the later licence regime from 1 July 2021 does not affect the earlier regime, and participation despite a foreign licence is not an abuse of rights under EU law (bad faith is for national law). The BGH had stayed I ZR 53/23 and I ZR 216/25 for this judgment.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-DE-0001","GL-DE-0004","GL-EU-0002"],"sources":[{"claim":"judgment 16.04.2026, facts, holdings (press release 53/26); judgment 16.04.2026, PR 53/26: player resident in Germany, play June 2019 to July 2021, claims assigned to a company, two Malta-licensed companies offering virtual slots and lottery betting; holdings","url":"https://curia.europa.eu/site/upload/docs/application/pdf/2026-04/cp260053en.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"referral lodged 11.07.2023 by the Civil Court Malta; stay of I ZR 53/23 pending C-440/23, reference dated 11.07.2023","url":"https://www.bundesgerichtshof.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/DE/2024/2024009.html","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"AG opinion September 2025 (date not confirmed)","url":"https://www.staudt.law/news/eugh-urteil-c-440-23-online-casino","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"AG opinion reported as delivered 04.09.2025 (law-firm report, not confirmed on curia)","url":"https://www.dlapiper.com/insights/blogs/mse-today/2025/advocate-general-of-the-cjeu-issues-opinion-on-claims-for-gambling-losses","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"}],"open":["AG Emiliou opinion date 04.09.2025 rests on law-firm reports (DLA Piper 15.09.2025, AdvoFin); curia case page and EUR-Lex did not render at verification","ECLI and chamber not retrieved (infocuria and EUR-Lex did not render)"],"status_read_from_records":true,"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/refund-claims/eugh-c-440-23-european-lotto-and-betting/"},{"id":"GL-EU-0313","slug":"anib-and-play-game-v-adm-bingo-c-728-22","title":"Joined Cases C-728/22 to C-730/22 Associazione Nazionale Italiana Bingo (Anib) and Play Game Srl v Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze and Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli","short_name":"Anib and Play Game (bingo technical extension)","aliases":["C-728/22","anib bingo ecj 2025","proroga tecnica bingo corte di giustizia"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"EU","state":"","court":"Court of Justice of the European Union (Fifth Chamber)","level":"eu"},"docket":"C-728/22 to C-730/22","filed":"2022-11-24","category":"licensing-administrative","case_type":"operator-v-regulator","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Associazione Nazionale Italiana Bingo (Anib); Play Game Srl; (parallel appeal by Ascob and about 60 bingo hall concessionaires)","defendants":["Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze","Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"AG L. Medina"},"claims":["Directive 2014/23 arts. 5 and 43, Arts. 49 and 56 TFEU: legislative 'technical extension' of expired bingo concessions against a monthly fee (EUR 2,800 then 5,000 then 7,500, later 8,625), a ban on relocating halls and the obligation to accept the extension to join the future tender"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2025-03-20","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":"Monthly fee per concession EUR 7,500 under Law 205/2017, raised to EUR 8,625 in 2022"},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-728/22","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/62022CJ0728"],"regulator":"","press":["https://www.agimeg.it/canoni-bingo-consiglio-di-stato-rimette-a-corte-giustizia-europea/","https://www.loyensloeff.com/insights/news--events/news/eu-court-clarifies-limitations-on-modifications-to-ongoing-concessions/"]},"summary":"Referred by the Consiglio di Stato (Sez. VII, non-final judgments of 21 November 2022). The Court held that Directive 2014/23 applies to concessions awarded before the directive but extended by later laws, that Art. 43 precludes the legislature from unilaterally extending concessions while raising a flat monthly fee regardless of turnover, keeping a relocation ban and forcing acceptance of the extension, and that ADM may not be deprived of the power to re-balance a concession after unforeseeable events. Italian courts then disapplied the extension fees (TAR Lazio, March-April 2026; Consiglio di Stato 2025-2026).","significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-IT-0015","GL-EU-0310"],"sources":[{"claim":"judgment 20 March 2025, Fifth Chamber, referrals of 21 November 2022 received 24 November 2022, fees EUR 7,500 and 8,625, operative part; judgment 20 March 2025 (Fifth Chamber); references received 24 November 2022","url":"https://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/62022CJ0728","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"Consiglio di Stato Sez. VII referral, ricorso n. 2225/2022 (Ascob and concessionaires), hearing 20 September 2022","url":"https://www.agimeg.it/canoni-bingo-consiglio-di-stato-rimette-a-corte-giustizia-europea/","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"}],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/licensing-administrative/anib-and-play-game-v-adm-bingo-c-728-22/"},{"aliases":["c-59/24 p netherlands egba","egba commission dutch lottery state aid t-167/21","nederland egba hof van justitie 2025"],"docket":"C-59/24 P (Eighth Chamber, 16 Oct 2025); T-167/21 (Ninth Chamber, 15 Nov 2023, EU:T:2023:723); Commission Decision C(2020) 8965 final of 18 Dec 2020, SA.44830 (2016/FC)","filed":"2021","claims":["art. 107 TFEU: Commission decision not to raise objections to the renewal of exclusive Dutch gambling licences (lottery/sports betting) challenged by EGBA; General Court annulled the decision"],"status_date":"2025-10-16","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Kingdom of the Netherlands (appellant)","defendants":["European Gaming and Betting Association (EGBA)","European Commission"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":""},"money":{"fund":0,"currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-59/24","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/62021TJ0167","https://lagen.nu/celex/62024CJ0059"],"regulator":"","press":[]},"significance":"precedent","related_cases":[],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"id":"GL-EU-0212","slug":"netherlands-v-egba-and-commission-c-59-24-p","title":"C-59/24 P Kingdom of the Netherlands v European Gaming and Betting Association and European Commission, judgment of 16 October 2025 (Eighth Chamber); General Court T-167/21 EGBA v Commission","short_name":"EGBA state-aid challenge to Dutch lottery licences: Netherlands loses appeal","jurisdiction":{"country":"EU","state":"","court":"Court of Justice of the European Union (appeal from the General Court)","level":"eu"},"category":"licensing-administrative","case_type":"operator-v-regulator","status":"dismissed","summary":"EGBA complained that the 2014 prolongation of the exclusive Dutch lottery and sports-betting licences without a tender involved state aid; the Commission found no aid in Decision C(2020) 8965 final of 18 December 2020 (SA.44830). The General Court (Ninth Chamber, T-167/21, 15 November 2023) annulled that decision for failure to open the formal investigation despite serious difficulties and ordered the Commission to pay EGBA's costs. On 16 October 2025 the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) dismissed the Netherlands' appeal and ordered it to bear its own costs and pay EGBA's, so the Commission must re-examine the licences.","sources":[{"claim":"C-59/24 P judgment 16 Oct 2025, Eighth Chamber (curia search result title)","url":"https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-59/24","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"operative part: appeal dismissed, Netherlands bears own costs and pays EGBA (EUR-Lex 62024CJ0059 summary snippet)","url":"https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62024CJ0059","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"General Court T-167/21, 15 Nov 2023: annuls Commission Decision C(2020) 8965 final of 18 Dec 2020 in SA.44830 (2016/FC); costs","url":"https://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/62021TJ0167","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"C-59/24 P judgment text mirror (lagen.nu CELEX 62024CJ0059): Eighth Chamber, 16 Oct 2025, appeal dismissed, Netherlands pays EGBA's costs","url":"https://lagen.nu/celex/62024CJ0059","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"C-59/24 P: judgment 16 Oct 2025, Eighth Chamber; General Court T-167/21 15 Nov 2023 (EU:T:2023:723); Commission Decision C(2020) 8965 final of 18 Dec 2020, SA.44830; operative part: appeal dismissed, Netherlands bears own costs and pays EGBA's (CELEX 62024CJ0059 via lagen.nu mirror)","url":"https://lagen.nu/celex/62024CJ0059","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"}],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/licensing-administrative/netherlands-v-egba-and-commission-c-59-24-p/"},{"id":"GL-EU-0311","slug":"admiral-gaming-network-v-adm-c-475-20","title":"Joined Cases C-475/20 to C-482/20 Admiral Gaming Network Srl and Others v Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli and Others (2015 Stability Law levy)","short_name":"Admiral Gaming Network (EUR 500 million slot levy)","aliases":["C-475/20","admiral gaming network ecj","tassa 500 milioni slot concessionari"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"EU","state":"","court":"Court of Justice of the European Union (Second Chamber)","level":"eu"},"docket":"C-475/20 to C-482/20","filed":"2020-09-28","category":"tax","case_type":"operator-v-regulator","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Admiral Gaming Network Srl, Cirsa Italia SpA, Codere Network SpA, Gamenet SpA, NTS Network SpA, Sisal Entertainment SpA, Snaitech SpA and other gaming-machine concessionaires","defendants":["Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli","Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze","Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"AG A. Rantos (opinion 7 April 2022)"},"claims":["Art. 49 TFEU and legitimate expectations: art. 1(649) Law 190/2014 requiring gaming-machine concessionaires to pay EUR 500 million per year from 2015 by cutting the commissions of the supply chain"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2022-09-22","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":"Levy EUR 500 million per year (2015), later converted into a one-off measure by Law 208/2015"},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-475/20","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/62020CJ0475","https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2022-04/cp220062en.pdf"],"regulator":"","press":["https://www.agimeg.it/slot-tassa-500-milioni-consiglio-di-stato-respinge-ricorso-concessionari/"]},"summary":"Eight referrals by the Consiglio di Stato (orders of 31 August 2020, among them ordinanza n. 5299/2020) in appeals by slot and VLT concessionaires against ADM's note of 15 January 2015 apportioning the EUR 500 million levy of the 2015 Stability Law. The Court held that if the levy restricts Art. 49 TFEU it cannot be justified by budgetary aims alone, but that legitimate expectations do not in principle preclude a temporary cut of agreed commissions unless concessionaires had no time to adapt. The Consiglio di Stato (Sez. IV) rejected the appeals in April 2025, finding the per-concessionaire share proportionate on the basis of a court-appointed expert report.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-IT-0014"],"sources":[{"claim":"judgment 22 September 2022, Second Chamber, referrals of 31 August 2020, EUR 500 million, operative part; judgment 22 September 2022 (Second Chamber); references received at the Court on 28 September 2020","url":"https://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/62020CJ0475","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"Advocate General opinion 7 April 2022, press release","url":"https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2022-04/cp220062en.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"Consiglio di Stato referral ordinanza 31 August 2020 n. 5299 quoting art. 1(649) Law 190/2014","url":"https://www.studiocerbone.com/?p=443121","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"}],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/tax/admiral-gaming-network-v-adm-c-475-20/"},{"id":"GL-EU-0310","slug":"sisal-stanleybet-malta-v-adm-gratta-e-vinci-c-721-19","title":"Joined Cases C-721/19 and C-722/19 Sisal SpA, Stanleybet Malta Ltd and Magellan Robotech Ltd v Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli and Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze (Gratta e Vinci)","short_name":"Sisal and Stanleybet v ADM (Gratta e Vinci renewal)","aliases":["C-721/19","gratta e vinci renewal ecj","lotterie nazionali renewal 2028"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"EU","state":"","court":"Court of Justice of the European Union (Fifth Chamber)","level":"eu"},"docket":"C-721/19 and C-722/19","filed":"2019-09-23","category":"lottery","case_type":"operator-v-regulator","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Sisal SpA; Stanleybet Malta Ltd; Magellan Robotech Ltd","defendants":["Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli","Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"AG M. Campos Sánchez-Bordona"},"claims":["Directive 2014/23 art. 43: renewal without tender of the instant-lottery concession held by Lotterie Nazionali Srl until 30 September 2028 (art. 20(1) D.L. 148/2017) against advance payment of EUR 800 million","Standing of operators who did not take part in the 2009 tender"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2021-09-02","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":"Renewal fee EUR 800 million paid in advance by Lotterie Nazionali (EUR 50 million in 2017, EUR 750 million in 2018-2019 per the judgment)"},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-721/19","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/62019CJ0721"],"regulator":"","press":["https://www.agimeg.it/consigliodistato-gara-grattaevinci-regolare-rinnovo-concessione-a-lotterie-nazionali-nessuna-discriminazione-altri-operatori-sentenza-integrale/"]},"summary":"Referred by the Consiglio di Stato (decisions of 20 June 2019). The Court held that EU law does not preclude a legislative renewal without a new tender where the renewal implements an option in the original concession, that moving the renewal decision to two years before expiry and re-timing the fee to raise state revenue is not a substantial modification, and that a non-participant in the original tender may still challenge the renewal if it can show an interest. The Consiglio di Stato (Sez. IV) then rejected the Sisal and Stanley appeals in January 2022.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-IT-0013","GL-EU-0308","GL-EU-0313"],"sources":[{"claim":"judgment 2 September 2021, Fifth Chamber, referral Consiglio di Stato 20 June 2019, EUR 800 million fee, renewal to 30 September 2028, operative part; judgment 2 September 2021 (Fifth Chamber); references received at the Court on 23 September 2019","url":"https://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/62019CJ0721","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"listed among Italian referrals January-March 2020 (art. 20(1) D.L. 148/2017)","url":"https://www.affarieuropei.gov.it/media/5298/rinvii-pregiudiziali-italiani-gennaio-marzo-2020.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/lottery/sisal-stanleybet-malta-v-adm-gratta-e-vinci-c-721-19/"},{"id":"GL-EU-0309","slug":"stanleyparma-c-788-18","title":"C-788/18 Stanleyparma Sas di Cantarelli Pietro & C. and Stanleybet Malta Ltd v Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli UM Emilia Romagna - SOT Parma","short_name":"Stanleyparma (single tax on bets for CTDs)","aliases":["stanleyparma","C-788/18","imposta unica scommesse ctd corte giustizia"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"EU","state":"","court":"Court of Justice of the European Union (First Chamber)","level":"eu"},"docket":"C-788/18","filed":"2018-12-14","category":"tax","case_type":"appeal","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Stanleyparma Sas di Cantarelli Pietro & C. (CTD); Stanleybet Malta Ltd","defendants":["Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli UM Emilia Romagna - SOT Parma"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"AG E. Tanchev"},"claims":["Art. 56 TFEU: joint and several liability of Italian CTDs for the imposta unica on bets collected for a Maltese bookmaker without Italian licence (art. 3 D.Lgs. 504/1998 as interpreted by art. 1(66) Law 220/2010)"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2020-02-26","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-788/18","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/62018CJ0788","https://www.eius.it/giurisprudenza/2020/076"],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"Referred by the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Parma (decision of 15 October 2018). The Court held that Art. 56 TFEU does not preclude making CTDs established in Italy jointly and severally liable with foreign bookmakers for the betting tax, irrespective of where the operator is established and of the absence of a licence. Together with Corte Costituzionale 27/2018 it anchors the Cassazione's tax line against Stanley CTDs for years from 2011.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-IT-0009","GL-IT-0022"],"sources":[{"claim":"judgment 26 February 2020, First Chamber, referral CTP Parma 15 October 2018, operative part; judgment 26 February 2020 (First Chamber); reference received 14 December 2018","url":"https://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/62018CJ0788","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/tax/stanleyparma-c-788-18/"},{"id":"GL-EU-0308","slug":"stanley-v-ministero-lotto-c-375-17","title":"C-375/17 Stanley International Betting Ltd and Stanleybet Malta Ltd v Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze and Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli (Lotto concession)","short_name":"Stanley v ADM (Lotto single-concession tender)","aliases":["C-375/17","lotto concession ecj lottoitalia","gara lotto stanleybet"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"EU","state":"","court":"Court of Justice of the European Union (Second Chamber)","level":"eu"},"docket":"C-375/17","filed":"2017-06-21","category":"lottery","case_type":"operator-v-regulator","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Stanley International Betting Ltd; Stanleybet Malta Ltd","defendants":["Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze","Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"AG E. Sharpston"},"claims":["Arts. 49 and 56 TFEU: single-concessionaire model for Lotto (art. 1(653) Law 190/2014)","Basic contract value EUR 700 million","Withdrawal clauses for indicted concessionaires and for marketing comparable games without licence"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2018-12-19","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":"Basic contract value EUR 700 million; Lotto sales 2014 EUR 6.6 billion; winning bid by Lottoitalia EUR 770 million (press)"},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-375/17","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/62017CJ0375"],"regulator":"","press":["https://www.agimeg.it/lotto-consiglio-rinvia-corte-giustizia-ue-bando-gara-del-gioco-del-lotto/"]},"summary":"Referred by the Consiglio di Stato (Sez. V, decision of 11 May 2017) in Stanley's challenge to the 2015-2016 tender that awarded the Lotto concession to the Lottoitalia consortium led by Lottomatica, the only bidder. The Court held that a sole-concessionaire model for Lotto, a high basic contract value (EUR 700 million) and the withdrawal clauses are compatible with Arts. 49 and 56 TFEU provided they are consistent, clear and proportionate, which the national court must verify. The Consiglio di Stato rejected Stanley's appeal in August 2019.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-IT-0012","GL-EU-0310"],"sources":[{"claim":"judgment 19 December 2018, Second Chamber, referral Consiglio di Stato 11 May 2017, EUR 700 million basic value, operative part; judgment 19 December 2018 (Second Chamber); reference received 21 June 2017","url":"https://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/62017CJ0375","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"Consiglio di Stato referral order of 12 June 2017; Lottoitalia offer EUR 770 million","url":"https://www.agimeg.it/lotto-consiglio-rinvia-corte-giustizia-ue-bando-gara-del-gioco-del-lotto/","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"}],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/lottery/stanley-v-ministero-lotto-c-375-17/"},{"id":"GL-EU-0307","slug":"global-starnet-c-322-16","title":"C-322/16 Global Starnet Ltd v Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze and Amministrazione Autonoma Monopoli di Stato","short_name":"Global Starnet (new conditions for existing online concessionaires)","aliases":["global starnet ecj","C-322/16","bplus giocolegale legge 220/2010"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"EU","state":"","court":"Court of Justice of the European Union (First Chamber)","level":"eu"},"docket":"C-322/16","filed":"2016-06-07","category":"licensing-administrative","case_type":"operator-v-regulator","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Global Starnet Ltd (formerly B Plus Giocolegale Ltd)","defendants":["Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze","Amministrazione Autonoma Monopoli di Stato (now ADM)"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"AG N. Wahl"},"claims":["Art. 267(3) TFEU: duty of a last-instance court to refer after the Corte Costituzionale upheld the same rules (judgment 56/2015)","Arts. 49 and 56 TFEU and legitimate expectations: art. 1(78)(b) Law 220/2010 imposing new requirements on existing concessionaires by addendum"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2017-12-20","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-322/16","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/62016CJ0322","https://www.giurcost.org/contents/giurcost/casi_scelti/CJUE/C%E2%80%91322-16.pdf"],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"Referred by the Consiglio di Stato (decision of 4 February 2016) after the Corte Costituzionale had upheld the 2011 Stability Law conditions in judgment 56/2015. The Court held that a last-instance court must in principle still refer EU-law questions even after a constitutional ruling on similar parameters, and that Arts. 49 and 56 TFEU and legitimate expectations do not preclude imposing new conditions on existing gaming concessionaires by addendum, if justified, suitable and proportionate.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-IT-0004","GL-IT-0001"],"sources":[{"claim":"judgment 20 December 2017, First Chamber, referral Consiglio di Stato 4 February 2016, operative part; judgment 20 December 2017 (First Chamber); reference received 7 June 2016","url":"https://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/62016CJ0322","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/licensing-administrative/global-starnet-c-322-16/"},{"id":"GL-EU-0306","slug":"politano-c-225-15","title":"C-225/15 Criminal proceedings against Domenico Politanò","short_name":"Politanò (two bank references)","aliases":["politano judgment","C-225/15","referenze bancarie bando monti"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"EU","state":"","court":"Court of Justice of the European Union (Second Chamber)","level":"eu"},"docket":"C-225/15","filed":"2015-05-15","category":"criminal-operator","case_type":"criminal","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Public prosecutor, Tribunale di Reggio Calabria","defendants":["Domenico Politanò (CTD manager linked to UniqGroup Ltd, Malta)"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"AG N. Wahl"},"claims":["Directive 2004/18 art. 47 and Art. 49 TFEU: requirement in the Monti tender that bidders formed less than two years earlier with gaming revenue below EUR 2 million prove financial standing with statements from at least two banks"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2016-09-08","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-225/15","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/62015CJ0225"],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"Referred by the Tribunale di Reggio Calabria (decision of 28 February 2015). The Court held that gambling concessions fall outside Directive 2004/18 and that Art. 49 TFEU does not preclude requiring two bank references as proof of economic standing, provided the national court finds the rule proportionate. The ruling closed one of the main arguments of CTDs linked to small Maltese bookmakers excluded from the 2012 tender.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-EU-0304","GL-EU-0305"],"sources":[{"claim":"judgment 8 September 2016, Second Chamber, referral Tribunale di Reggio Calabria 28 February 2015, two-million-euro threshold, operative part; judgment 8 September 2016 (Second Chamber); reference received 15 May 2015","url":"https://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/62015CJ0225","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/criminal-operator/politano-c-225-15/"},{"id":"GL-EU-0304","slug":"stanley-international-betting-v-ministero-c-463-13","title":"C-463/13 Stanley International Betting Ltd and Stanleybet Malta Ltd v Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze and Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli di Stato","short_name":"Stanley v Ministero (Monti tender 2012)","aliases":["C-463/13","bando monti ecj","stanleybet 2000 licences 40 months"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"EU","state":"","court":"Court of Justice of the European Union (Third Chamber)","level":"eu"},"docket":"C-463/13","filed":"2013-08-23","category":"licensing-administrative","case_type":"operator-v-regulator","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Stanley International Betting Ltd; Stanleybet Malta Ltd","defendants":["Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze","Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli di Stato"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"AG N. Wahl"},"claims":["Arts. 49 and 56 TFEU, equal treatment and effectiveness: 2012 tender (art. 10(9-octies) D.L. 16/2012) for 2,000 betting licences lasting 40 months, versus 9 to 12 years for earlier licences"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2015-01-22","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-463/13","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/62013CJ0463"],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"Referred by the Consiglio di Stato (decision of 2 July 2013) in Stanley's appeal against the 2012 'Monti' tender. The Court held that EU law does not preclude a fresh tender for licences with a shorter validity than earlier licences when the aim is to align licence expiry dates. The Consiglio di Stato (Sez. IV) then rejected Stanley's appeal after the hearing of 2 July 2015; Stanley stayed outside the licensed network and its CTD litigation continued.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-EU-0301","GL-EU-0305","GL-IT-0011"],"sources":[{"claim":"judgment 22 January 2015, Third Chamber, referral Consiglio di Stato 2 July 2013, 40-month licences, operative part; judgment 22 January 2015 (Third Chamber); reference received 23 August 2013","url":"https://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/62013CJ0463","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/licensing-administrative/stanley-international-betting-v-ministero-c-463-13/"},{"id":"GL-EU-0303","slug":"blanco-and-fabretti-c-344-13","title":"Joined Cases C-344/13 and C-367/13 Cristiano Blanco and Pier Paolo Fabretti v Agenzia delle Entrate - Direzione Provinciale I di Roma - Ufficio Controlli","short_name":"Blanco and Fabretti (tax on foreign casino winnings)","aliases":["blanco fabretti","C-344/13","italy tax casino winnings abroad ecj"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"EU","state":"","court":"Court of Justice of the European Union (Third Chamber)","level":"eu"},"docket":"C-344/13 and C-367/13","filed":"2013-06-24","category":"tax","case_type":"appeal","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Cristiano Blanco; Pier Paolo Fabretti (Italian residents taxed on winnings from casinos in other Member States)","defendants":["Agenzia delle Entrate - Direzione Provinciale I di Roma - Ufficio Controlli"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"AG P. Cruz Villalón"},"claims":["Arts. 52 and 56 TFEU: income tax on winnings from casinos in other Member States while winnings from Italian casinos are exempt (taxed at source)"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2014-10-22","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-344/13","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/62013CJ0344"],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"Referred by the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Roma (decision of 28 May 2013). The Court held that Arts. 52 and 56 TFEU preclude legislation subjecting winnings from games of chance obtained in casinos in other Member States to income tax while exempting similar winnings obtained in national casinos. Italy had to stop taxing EU casino winnings of residents; the ruling is cited in Italian player tax disputes.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":[],"sources":[{"claim":"judgment 22 October 2014, Third Chamber, referral CTP Roma 28 May 2013, operative part; judgment 22 October 2014 (Third Chamber); references received 24 June and 1 July 2013","url":"https://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/62013CJ0344","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/tax/blanco-and-fabretti-c-344-13/"},{"id":"GL-EU-0302","slug":"biasci-c-660-11","title":"Joined Cases C-660/11 and C-8/12 Daniele Biasci and Others v Ministero dell'Interno and Questura di Livorno; Cristian Rainone and Others v Ministero dell'Interno and Others","short_name":"Biasci (police authorisation for CTDs)","aliases":["biasci judgment","C-660/11","rainone questura"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"EU","state":"","court":"Court of Justice of the European Union (Third Chamber)","level":"eu"},"docket":"C-660/11 and C-8/12","filed":"2011-12-27","category":"licensing-administrative","case_type":"operator-v-regulator","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Daniele Biasci and other CTD operators linked to Goldbet Sportwetten GmbH (Austria); Cristian Rainone and others","defendants":["Ministero dell'Interno","Questura di Livorno","Questura di Prato","Questura di Firenze"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"AG P. Cruz Villalón"},"claims":["Arts. 43 and 49 EC: police authorisation (art. 88 TULPS) reserved to licence holders","Minimum distances and withdrawal clauses of the 2006 Bersani tender","Whether a Maltese or Austrian licence must be recognised in Italy"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2013-09-12","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-660/11","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/62011CJ0660"],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"Referred by the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Toscana (decisions of 5 December 2011) in appeals by CTD operators refused police authorisations. The Court accepted that Italy may require a police authorisation in addition to a state licence and restrict it to licence holders, repeated Costa and Cifone on minimum distances and on clear withdrawal clauses (art. 23(3) model contract), added that a national rule which in fact precludes all cross-border activity is contrary to Arts. 43 and 49 EC, and held that a licence held in another Member State does not oblige Italy to admit the operator without its own licence (no mutual recognition).","significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-EU-0301","GL-EU-0007"],"sources":[{"claim":"judgment 12 September 2013, Third Chamber, referral TAR Toscana decisions of 5 December 2011, operative part; judgment 12 September 2013 (Third Chamber); references received 27 December 2011 (C-660/11) and 2 January 2012 (C-8/12)","url":"https://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/62011CJ0660","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/licensing-administrative/biasci-c-660-11/"},{"aliases":["royal scandinavian casino commission t-615/11","c-541/14 p"],"docket":"T-615/11; C-541/14 P (order of 21 April 2016, Sixth Chamber)","filed":"2011-12","claims":["annulment of Commission Decision 2012/140/EU (Danish online gambling tax)"],"status_date":"2016-04-21","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Royal Scandinavian Casino Århus I/S","defendants":["European Commission","intervener: Kingdom of Denmark"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":""},"money":{"fund":0,"currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=T-615/11","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/62014CB0541"],"regulator":"","press":[]},"significance":"routine","related_cases":["GL-EU-0208"],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"id":"GL-EU-0209","slug":"royal-scandinavian-casino-arhus-v-commission-t-615-11","title":"T-615/11 Royal Scandinavian Casino Århus I/S v European Commission, judgment of 26 September 2014; appeal C-541/14 P dismissed by order of 21 April 2016","short_name":"Royal Scandinavian Casino state-aid challenge dismissed","jurisdiction":{"country":"EU","state":"","court":"General Court of the European Union; Court of Justice on appeal","level":"eu"},"category":"tax","case_type":"operator-v-regulator","status":"dismissed","summary":"The Aarhus casino's parallel action against the Commission's approval of Denmark's lower online gambling tax was dismissed for lack of direct and individual concern on the same day as T-601/11; the casino appealed on 26 November 2014 (C-541/14 P); by order of 21 April 2016 (Sixth Chamber, OJ C 279/02 of 1 August 2016) the Court of Justice dismissed the appeal and ordered the casino to pay the costs, Denmark bearing its own.","sources":[{"claim":"GC judgment 26 Sept 2014, T-615/11","url":"https://www.gtlaw.com/ar/insights/2014/11/denmarks-differentiated-tax-regime-for-online-gambling-and-landbased-games","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"appeal C-541/14 P lodged 26 Nov 2014 (Folketing document)","url":"https://ft.dk/samling/20141/almdel/EUU/bilag/324/1496261.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"OJ notice 2016/C 279/02: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 April 2016, C-541/14 P, appeal dismissed, costs","url":"https://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/62014CB0541","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/tax/royal-scandinavian-casino-arhus-v-commission-t-615-11/"},{"aliases":["dansk automat brancheforening commission t-601/11","denmark online gambling tax state aid general court","c-563/14 p"],"docket":"T-601/11; C-563/14 P (order of 21 April 2016, Sixth Chamber, ECLI:EU:C:2016:303)","filed":"2011-11","claims":["annulment of Commission Decision 2012/140/EU approving the lower Danish tax rate for online gambling (20% of GGR vs up to 75% land-based) as compatible aid"],"status_date":"2016-04-21","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Dansk Automat Brancheforening (Danish gaming-machine trade association)","defendants":["European Commission","intervener: Kingdom of Denmark"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":""},"money":{"fund":0,"currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=T-601/11","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/62014CB0563","https://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/62014TJ0601"],"regulator":"","press":["https://www.gtlaw.com/ar/insights/2014/11/denmarks-differentiated-tax-regime-for-online-gambling-and-landbased-games"]},"significance":"routine","related_cases":["GL-EU-0209"],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"id":"GL-EU-0208","slug":"dansk-automat-brancheforening-v-commission-t-601-11","title":"T-601/11 Dansk Automat Brancheforening v European Commission, judgment of 26 September 2014; appeal C-563/14 P dismissed by order of 21 April 2016","short_name":"Danish online gambling tax state-aid challenge (land-based machines) dismissed","jurisdiction":{"country":"EU","state":"","court":"General Court of the European Union; Court of Justice on appeal","level":"eu"},"category":"tax","case_type":"operator-v-regulator","status":"dismissed","summary":"Land-based operators attacked the Commission decision that let Denmark tax online gambling at a lower rate when it opened the market in 2012. The General Court dismissed the action as inadmissible on 26 September 2014 because the association had not shown its members were individually concerned. The association appealed (C-563/14 P, lodged 5 December 2014); by order of 21 April 2016 (Sixth Chamber, OJ C 279/03 of 1 August 2016) the Court of Justice dismissed the appeal and ordered the association to pay the costs, Denmark bearing its own.","sources":[{"claim":"GC judgments 26 Sept 2014, T-601/11 and T-615/11, inadmissibility","url":"https://www.gtlaw.com/ar/insights/2014/11/denmarks-differentiated-tax-regime-for-online-gambling-and-landbased-games","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"appeal C-563/14 P lodged 5 Dec 2014 (Danish Ministry of Taxation note)","url":"https://ft.dk/samling/20141/almdel/SAU/bilag/100/1497292.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"OJ notice 2016/C 279/03: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 April 2016, C-563/14 P, appeal dismissed, DAB pays costs, Denmark bears own costs","url":"https://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/62014CB0563","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/tax/dansk-automat-brancheforening-v-commission-t-601-11/"},{"id":"GL-EU-0326","slug":"commission-v-spain-lottery-winnings-tax-c-153-08","title":"C-153/08 Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (income tax exemption for lottery winnings)","short_name":"CJEU Commission v Spain (lottery winnings tax exemption)","aliases":["commission v spain c-153/08","spain lottery winnings tax exemption cjeu","loterias exencion premios extranjeros"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"EU","state":"","court":"Court of Justice of the European Communities (First Chamber)","level":"eu"},"docket":"C-153/08","filed":"2008-04-15","category":"tax","case_type":"regulator-v-operator","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Commission of the European Communities","defendants":["Kingdom of Spain"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"AG P. Mengozzi"},"claims":["Art. 49 EC (now Art. 56 TFEU) freedom to provide services","Art. 36 EEA Agreement"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2009-10-06","money":{"fund":"","currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":"","payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://curia.europa.eu/juris/documents.jsf?num=C-153%2F08","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/62008CJ0153"],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"Spain exempted from income tax the winnings of lotteries and games run by Spanish public bodies (Loterías y Apuestas del Estado, the Autonomous Communities, ONCE and Cruz Roja) while taxing winnings from equivalent bodies established in other Member States. The Court found this a discriminatory restriction on the freedom to provide services. Spain later replaced the exemption with a 20% special levy on large prizes from both domestic and comparable EU operators.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-ES-0004"],"sources":[{"claim":"judgment 6 October 2009 (First Chamber); action brought 15 April 2008; operative part: tax exemption limited to Spanish public bodies' lottery winnings contrary to Art. 49 EC and Art. 36 EEA","url":"https://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/62008CJ0153","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/tax/commission-v-spain-lottery-winnings-tax-c-153-08/"},{"id":"GL-EU-0325","slug":"commission-v-greece-penalty-payment-c-109-08","title":"C-109/08 Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Article 228 EC penalty for non-compliance with C-65/05)","short_name":"CJEU Commission v Greece (electronic games penalty payment)","aliases":["commission v greece c-109/08","greece gaming penalty payment 2009"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"EU","state":"","court":"Court of Justice of the European Communities (Second Chamber)","level":"eu"},"docket":"C-109/08","filed":"2008-03-10","category":"licensing-administrative","case_type":"regulator-v-operator","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Commission of the European Communities","defendants":["Hellenic Republic"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"AG Y. Bot"},"claims":["Art. 228 EC (failure to comply with judgment C-65/05)"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2009-06-04","money":{"fund":"","currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":"","payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":"penalty payment of EUR 31,536 for each day of delay in complying with the judgment in C-65/05, from 4 June 2009 until compliance, plus a lump sum of EUR 3 million, both payable into the European Community own resources account; Greece ordered to pay costs"},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://curia.europa.eu/juris/documents.jsf?num=C-109%2F08","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/62008CJ0109"],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"Second infringement action: because Greece had not repealed the Law 3037/2002 ban on electronic games after the 2006 judgment, the Court imposed a lump sum and a daily penalty payment until compliance. Greece then amended the law (Law 4002/2011 Part D re-regulated the gaming market and created the Hellenic Gaming Commission).","significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-EU-0324","GL-GR-0004"],"sources":[{"claim":"Law 3037/2002 abolished and replaced by Law 4002/2011 regime (HGC Annual Activity Report 2015)","url":"https://hgc.gov.gr/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Annual_Activity_Report_2015_Complete.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"judgment 4 June 2009 (Second Chamber); action brought 10 March 2008; operative part: penalty payment EUR 31,536 per day and lump sum EUR 3 million","url":"https://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/62008CJ0109","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/licensing-administrative/commission-v-greece-penalty-payment-c-109-08/"},{"id":"GL-EU-0324","slug":"commission-v-greece-electronic-games-ban-c-65-05","title":"C-65/05 Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (ban on electrical, electromechanical and electronic games, Law 3037/2002)","short_name":"CJEU Commission v Greece (electronic games ban)","aliases":["commission v greece c-65/05","greece electronic games ban law 3037/2002"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"EU","state":"","court":"Court of Justice of the European Communities (Second Chamber)","level":"eu"},"docket":"C-65/05","filed":"2005-02-10","category":"licensing-administrative","case_type":"regulator-v-operator","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Commission of the European Communities","defendants":["Hellenic Republic"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"AG F.G. Jacobs"},"claims":["Arts. 28, 43 and 49 EC (free movement of goods, establishment, services)","Directive 98/34/EC"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2006-10-26","money":{"fund":"","currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":"","payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://curia.europa.eu/juris/documents.jsf?num=C-65%2F05","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/62005CJ0065"],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"Infringement action against Greece's Law 3037/2002, which banned the installation and operation of all electrical, electromechanical and electronic games, including computer games, in public and private places other than casinos, with criminal penalties. The Court found the blanket ban disproportionate and contrary to the Treaty freedoms. Greece did not comply in time, leading to the penalty judgment in C-109/08; the Hellenic Gaming Commission later took over 13 indemnification actions brought against the State for damage caused by the abolished law.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-EU-0325","GL-GR-0004"],"sources":[{"claim":"Law 3037/2002 abolished; HGC succeeded the State in 13 indemnification cases arising from it (HGC Annual Activity Report 2015, ch. 9.1)","url":"https://hgc.gov.gr/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Annual_Activity_Report_2015_Complete.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"judgment 26 October 2006 (Second Chamber); action brought 10 February 2005; operative part: Law 3037/2002 ban contrary to Arts. 28, 43 and 49 EC and Directive 98/34","url":"https://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/62005CJ0065","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/licensing-administrative/commission-v-greece-electronic-games-ban-c-65-05/"},{"id":"GL-EU-0300","slug":"zenatti-c-67-98","title":"C-67/98 Questore di Verona v Diego Zenatti","short_name":"Zenatti (CJEU 1999)","aliases":["zenatti judgment","zenatti sports betting italy ecj"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"EU","state":"","court":"Court of Justice of the European Communities (plenary formation, nine judges)","level":"eu"},"docket":"C-67/98","filed":"1998-03-13","category":"licensing-administrative","case_type":"constitutional","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Diego Zenatti (intermediary collecting bets for the UK bookmaker SSP Overseas Betting Ltd)","defendants":["Questore di Verona"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"President G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias; Rapporteur J.-P. Puissochet; AG N. Fennelly"},"claims":["Freedom to provide services (then Art. 59 EC Treaty) against the Italian reservation of sports betting to CONI and UNIRE"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"1999-10-21","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-67/98","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/61998CJ0067"],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"First Italian gambling referral to Luxembourg, sent by the Consiglio di Stato by order of 20 January 1998. The Court held that the Treaty rules on services do not preclude Italian legislation reserving sports betting to certain bodies if it is justified by social-policy objectives limiting the harmful effects of betting and the restrictions are proportionate. Every later Italian case (Gambelli, Placanica, Costa and Cifone) starts from this test.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-EU-0006","GL-EU-0007","GL-EU-0301"],"sources":[{"claim":"judgment of 21 October 1999, referring court Consiglio di Stato order 20 January 1998, operative part; judgment of 21 October 1999; reference received at the Court on 13 March 1998; composition; AG Fennelly","url":"https://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/61998CJ0067","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/licensing-administrative/zenatti-c-67-98/"},{"aliases":["läärä c-124/97","laara case cjeu gambling finland","ray slot machine monopoly ecj 1999"],"docket":"C-124/97","filed":"","claims":["arts. 30, 36, 56, 59 EC Treaty (goods, services) and the exclusive right of Raha-automaattiyhdistys (RAY) to operate slot machines"],"status_date":"1999-09-21","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Markku Juhani Läärä, Cotswold Microsystems Ltd, Oy Transatlantic Software Ltd","defendants":["Finnish prosecutor","Suomen valtio"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":""},"money":{"fund":0,"currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-124/97","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":[],"regulator":"","press":[]},"significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-FI-0001","GL-EU-0201"],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"id":"GL-EU-0200","slug":"laara-c-124-97-finnish-slot-machine-monopoly","title":"C-124/97 Markku Juhani Läärä, Cotswold Microsystems Ltd and Oy Transatlantic Software Ltd v Kihlakunnansyyttäjä (Jyväskylä) and Suomen valtio, judgment of 21 September 1999","short_name":"Läärä: Finnish slot-machine monopoly compatible with EU law","jurisdiction":{"country":"EU","state":"","court":"Court of Justice of the European Union (referral from Vaasan hovioikeus)","level":"eu"},"category":"licensing-administrative","case_type":"constitutional","status":"judgment","summary":"A Finnish prosecution for operating slot machines outside the RAY monopoly produced the Court's second gambling judgment after Schindler: a national rule granting a single public body the exclusive right to operate slot machines restricts the freedom to provide services but is justified by the aim of limiting exploitation of the human passion for gambling and preventing crime. Cited in every later Nordic monopoly case (Sjöberg, Norsk Lotteri, Trannel).","sources":[{"claim":"C-124/97 judgment 21 Sept 1999 (curia case list)","url":"https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-124/97","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"EU gambling case-law list","url":"https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/sectors/online-gambling/gambling-case-law_en","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/licensing-administrative/laara-c-124-97-finnish-slot-machine-monopoly/"},{"aliases":["lindman c-42/02","lindman case lottery winnings tax","ålands förvaltningsdomstol lotteri skatt eu"],"docket":"C-42/02","filed":"","claims":["art. 49 EC (services): Finnish income tax on winnings from foreign lotteries while domestic lottery winnings are tax-exempt"],"status_date":"2003-11-13","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Diana Elisabeth Lindman (Åland resident who won SEK 1 million in a Swedish lottery)","defendants":["Skatterättelsenämnden (Finland)"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":""},"money":{"fund":0,"currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-42/02","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":[],"regulator":"","press":[]},"significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-EU-0200"],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"id":"GL-EU-0201","slug":"lindman-c-42-02-tax-on-foreign-lottery-winnings","title":"C-42/02 Diana Elisabeth Lindman v Skatterättelsenämnden, judgment of 13 November 2003","short_name":"Lindman: Finnish tax on foreign lottery winnings discriminatory","jurisdiction":{"country":"EU","state":"","court":"Court of Justice of the European Union (referral from Ålands förvaltningsdomstol)","level":"eu"},"category":"tax","case_type":"individual","status":"judgment","summary":"Finland taxed winnings from a Swedish lottery as income while exempting Finnish lottery winnings. The Court held this discriminatory and not justified by generalised presumptions about gambling harm without evidence. Finland amended its law in 2005 (law 334/2005) to exempt winnings from lotteries lawfully organised in the EEA; Lindman is the leading EU case on taxation of gambling winnings.","sources":[{"claim":"C-42/02 judgment 13 Nov 2003 (curia case list)","url":"https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-42/02","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"Finnish follow-up law 334/2005 exempting EEA lottery winnings (Vero guidance)","url":"https://www.vero.fi/sv/Detaljerade_skatteanvisningar/anvisningar/47917/om_beskattning_av_pokerinkomste/","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/tax/lindman-c-42-02-tax-on-foreign-lottery-winnings/"},{"aliases":["efta court ladbrokes e-3/06","ladbrokes dommen efta 2007","norsk tipping marketing proportionality efta"],"docket":"E-3/06","filed":"","claims":["EEA arts. 31 and 36: exclusive rights of Norsk Tipping (sports betting, lotteries) and Norsk Rikstoto (horse racing); refusal to license Ladbrokes"],"status_date":"2007-05-30","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Ladbrokes Ltd","defendants":["Government of Norway (Ministry of Culture and Church Affairs; Ministry of Agriculture and Food)"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":""},"money":{"fund":0,"currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://eftacourt.int/cases/e-03-06/","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://regjeringen.no/globalassets/upload/kkd/pengespill-og-lotteri/ladbrokes-dommen.pdf"],"regulator":"","press":[]},"significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-NO-0002","GL-NO-0005"],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"id":"GL-EU-0204","slug":"efta-court-e-3-06-ladbrokes-v-norway","title":"EFTA Court E-3/06 Ladbrokes Ltd v The Government of Norway, Ministry of Culture and Church Affairs and Ministry of Agriculture and Food, advisory opinion of 30 May 2007","short_name":"Ladbrokes EFTA opinion: monopoly only if gaming policy is consistently restrictive","jurisdiction":{"country":"EU","state":"","court":"EFTA Court (request from Oslo tingrett)","level":"eu"},"category":"licensing-administrative","case_type":"operator-v-regulator","status":"judgment","summary":"The EFTA Court advised that exclusive-rights systems may be justified only if the state's gaming policy genuinely and consistently seeks to reduce gambling opportunities, that the marketing and new-game development of the monopolist are relevant to that assessment, and that the national court must apply a full proportionality test. Oslo tingrett nonetheless ruled for the State on 3 October 2008 and Ladbrokes abandoned its appeal in 2009; Norwegian courts have since cited the opinion as endorsing the model.","sources":[{"claim":"EFTA Court Ladbrokes opinion 30 May 2007 (Norwegian government copy)","url":"https://regjeringen.no/globalassets/upload/kkd/pengespill-og-lotteri/ladbrokes-dommen.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"EFTA Court case page E-3/06","url":"https://eftacourt.int/cases/e-03-06/","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/licensing-administrative/efta-court-e-3-06-ladbrokes-v-norway/"},{"aliases":["sporting exchange c-203/08","betfair minister van justitie hvj 2010","betfair cjeu netherlands licence"],"docket":"C-203/08","filed":"","claims":["art. 49 EC: Dutch single-licence system for sports betting and totalisator; renewal of De Lotto and Scientific Games Racing licences without a competitive procedure"],"status_date":"2010-06-03","parties":{"plaintiffs":"The Sporting Exchange Ltd (Betfair)","defendants":["Minister van Justitie (Netherlands)","interveners: Stichting de Nationale Sporttotalisator"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":""},"money":{"fund":0,"currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/P_64502/en","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":[],"regulator":"","press":[]},"significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-NL-0025","GL-EU-0206"],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"id":"GL-EU-0205","slug":"sporting-exchange-betfair-c-203-08","title":"C-203/08 The Sporting Exchange Ltd (Betfair) v Minister van Justitie, judgment of 3 June 2010","short_name":"Betfair v Netherlands: single-licence renewal without tender needs transparency","jurisdiction":{"country":"EU","state":"","court":"Court of Justice of the European Union (referral from Raad van State)","level":"eu"},"category":"licensing-administrative","case_type":"operator-v-regulator","status":"judgment","summary":"The Court held that a Member State may restrict online betting to a single licensee and need not recognise licences issued elsewhere, but that granting or renewing an exclusive licence to a private operator without any transparency breaches art. 49 EC unless the licensee is a public operator under strict state control. The Raad van State applied the ruling in March 2011, upholding the Dutch system.","sources":[{"claim":"CJEU press release on C-203/08 and C-258/08, 3 June 2010","url":"https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/P_64502/en","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/licensing-administrative/sporting-exchange-betfair-c-203-08/"},{"aliases":["ladbrokes c-258/08","ladbrokes de lotto hvj eu 2010","ladbrokes netherlands cjeu"],"docket":"C-258/08","filed":"","claims":["art. 49 EC: Dutch prohibition on offering online betting without a Wok licence; injunction to block Dutch residents"],"status_date":"2010-06-03","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Ladbrokes Betting & Gaming Ltd, Ladbrokes International Ltd","defendants":["Stichting de Nationale Sporttotalisator (De Lotto)"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":""},"money":{"fund":0,"currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/P_64502/en","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":[],"regulator":"","press":[]},"significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-NL-0026","GL-EU-0205"],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"id":"GL-EU-0206","slug":"ladbrokes-v-stichting-nationale-sporttotalisator-c-258-08","title":"C-258/08 Ladbrokes Betting & Gaming Ltd and Ladbrokes International Ltd v Stichting de Nationale Sporttotalisator, judgment of 3 June 2010","short_name":"Ladbrokes v De Lotto: Member States may block foreign online bookmakers","jurisdiction":{"country":"EU","state":"","court":"Court of Justice of the European Union (referral from Hoge Raad)","level":"eu"},"category":"licensing-administrative","case_type":"individual","status":"judgment","summary":"In De Lotto's civil action the Court held that a Member State may prohibit a bookmaker licensed in another Member State from offering online bets to its residents and may order it to block access, provided the restrictive policy is pursued consistently; the development of new games and advertising by the monopolist do not necessarily make the policy inconsistent. The Hoge Raad rejected Ladbrokes' appeal on 24 February 2012.","sources":[{"claim":"CJEU press release on C-203/08 and C-258/08, 3 June 2010","url":"https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/P_64502/en","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/licensing-administrative/ladbrokes-v-stichting-nationale-sporttotalisator-c-258-08/"},{"aliases":["sjöberg gerdin c-447/08","sjoberg gerdin cjeu sweden gambling advertising"],"docket":"C-447/08; C-448/08","filed":"","claims":["art. 49 EC and the lotterilagen promotion ban and penalty provisions"],"status_date":"2010-07-08","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Swedish prosecutor","defendants":["Otto Sjöberg","Anders Gerdin"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":""},"money":{"fund":0,"currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2010-07/cp100075en.pdf"],"regulator":"","press":[]},"significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-SE-0001","GL-EU-0202"],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"id":"GL-EU-0207","slug":"sjoberg-gerdin-c-447-08-c-448-08","title":"Joined Cases C-447/08 and C-448/08 Criminal proceedings against Otto Sjöberg and Anders Gerdin, judgment of 8 July 2010","short_name":"Sjöberg and Gerdin: Swedish promotion ban lawful, unequal penalties not","jurisdiction":{"country":"EU","state":"","court":"Court of Justice of the European Union (referral from Svea hovrätt)","level":"eu"},"category":"advertising-marketing","case_type":"criminal","status":"judgment","summary":"The Court held that Sweden may prohibit the promotion of gambling organised for profit by private operators in other Member States, since Swedish law reserves gambling to non-profit or public-interest operators, but that penalising promotion of foreign gambling more harshly than promotion of unlicensed domestic gambling is discriminatory. Svea hovrätt acquitted both editors in 2011.","sources":[{"claim":"CJEU press release No 75/10, 8 July 2010","url":"https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2010-07/cp100075en.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/advertising-marketing/sjoberg-gerdin-c-447-08-c-448-08/"},{"aliases":["casino de spa c-741/22","belgium vat online gambling cjeu 2024","casino de spa vat judgment"],"docket":"C-741/22","filed":"","claims":["art. 135(1)(i) VAT Directive and fiscal neutrality: VAT on online games of chance other than lotteries from 1 July 2016 while online lotteries and land-based games stay exempt","state aid (art. 107 TFEU)"],"status_date":"2024-09-12","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Casino de Spa SA and 26 other Belgian online gambling operators (Ardent/Gaming1 group and others)","defendants":["État belge (SPF Finances)"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":""},"money":{"fund":0,"currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-741/22","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/62022CJ0741","https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62022CJ0741","https://lagen.nu/celex/62022CJ0741"],"regulator":"","press":[]},"significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-EU-0211","GL-BE-0003"],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"id":"GL-EU-0210","slug":"casino-de-spa-c-741-22-vat-online-gambling","title":"C-741/22 Casino de Spa SA and Others v État belge, judgment of 12 September 2024","short_name":"Casino de Spa: Belgium may tax online gambling with VAT while exempting lotteries and land-based games","jurisdiction":{"country":"EU","state":"","court":"Court of Justice of the European Union (referral from Tribunal de première instance de Liège)","level":"eu"},"category":"tax","case_type":"operator-v-regulator","status":"judgment","summary":"After the Constitutional Court had annulled (34/2018) and the legislature re-enacted VAT on online gambling, 27 Belgian operators argued before the tribunal de premiere instance de Liege that the selective exemption breached fiscal neutrality and amounted to state aid for the Nationale Loterij and land-based casinos. The Court (First Chamber, 12 September 2024) ruled that art. 135(1)(i) of the VAT Directive does not preclude taxing online games of chance other than lotteries while exempting online lottery tickets, provided the objective differences are liable to have a considerable influence on the average consumer's choice; that a national court must disapply incompatible provisions even where the constitutional court maintained their effects; that VAT collected in breach of the Directive must be refunded unless this would unjustly enrich the taxable person; and that an operator that did not benefit from an unlawful exemption cannot recover the VAT it paid as damages under art. 108(3) TFEU.","sources":[{"claim":"C-741/22 judgment 12 Sept 2024 (curia case list)","url":"https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-741/22","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"AG Kokott opinion 25 April 2024 and judgment summaries (SERP snippets: KPMG, Taxlive, Highlights & Insights)","url":"https://infocuria.curia.europa.eu/tabs/redirect/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-741/22","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"judgment text (First Chamber, 12 Sept 2024): operative part points 1-4; referral from tribunal de premiere instance de Liege","url":"https://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/62022CJ0741","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"C-741/22 operative part (First Chamber, 12 Sept 2024), four rulings: art. 135(1)(i) VAT Directive does not preclude different treatment of online lottery tickets and other online games if objective differences may considerably influence the average consumer; national court must disapply incompatible provisions despite constitutional court maintaining effects; refund of VAT levied in breach unless unjust enrichment; art. 108(3) TFEU: no damages equal to VAT paid where others enjoyed an unlawful exemption (CELEX 62022CJ0741 via lagen.nu mirror)","url":"https://lagen.nu/celex/62022CJ0741","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"}],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/tax/casino-de-spa-c-741-22-vat-online-gambling/"},{"aliases":["chaudfontaine loisirs c-73/23","belgium online casino vat cjeu chaudfontaine"],"docket":"C-73/23","filed":"","claims":["art. 135(1)(i) VAT Directive, fiscal neutrality, state aid: VAT on online gambling vs exemption for land-based games and lotteries"],"status_date":"2024-09-12","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Chaudfontaine Loisirs SA (casino operator)","defendants":["État belge"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":""},"money":{"fund":0,"currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-73/23","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/62023CJ0073","https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62023CJ0073","https://lagen.nu/celex/62023CJ0073"],"regulator":"","press":[]},"significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-EU-0210","GL-BE-0003"],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"id":"GL-EU-0211","slug":"chaudfontaine-loisirs-c-73-23-vat-online-gambling","title":"C-73/23 Chaudfontaine Loisirs SA v État belge, judgment of 12 September 2024","short_name":"Chaudfontaine Loisirs: VAT on online casino games compatible with EU law","jurisdiction":{"country":"EU","state":"","court":"Court of Justice of the European Union (referral from Tribunal de première instance de Liège)","level":"eu"},"category":"tax","case_type":"operator-v-regulator","status":"judgment","summary":"Decided the same day as Casino de Spa on a second Liege referral (decision of 30 January 2023, received 10 February 2023). The Court (First Chamber) ruled that art. 135(1)(i) of the VAT Directive does not preclude legislation that exempts lottery tickets and offline gambling while taxing online games of chance other than lotteries, provided the objective differences are liable to have a considerable influence on the average consumer's choice; that the national court must disapply incompatible provisions notwithstanding the constitutional court's maintenance of their effects; and that VAT collected in breach of the Directive must be refunded unless this unjustly enriches the taxable person.","sources":[{"claim":"C-73/23 judgment 12 Sept 2024 (curia case list)","url":"https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-73/23","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"judgment date and holding (SERP snippets, 12 Sept 2024)","url":"https://infocuria.curia.europa.eu/tabs/redirect/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-73/23","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"judgment text (First Chamber, 12 Sept 2024): operative part points 1-3","url":"https://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/62023CJ0073","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"C-73/23 operative part (First Chamber, 12 Sept 2024), three rulings: art. 135(1)(i) does not preclude different treatment of lotteries and offline games versus online games other than lotteries if objective differences may considerably influence the average consumer; disapply incompatible provisions despite maintained effects; refund unless unjust enrichment (CELEX 62023CJ0073 via lagen.nu mirror)","url":"https://lagen.nu/celex/62023CJ0073","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"}],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/tax/chaudfontaine-loisirs-c-73-23-vat-online-gambling/"},{"id":"GL-FR-0016","slug":"betclic-v-anj-conseil-d-etat-500722-trj-sanction","title":"Betclic Enterprises Limited c/ Autorité nationale des jeux (sanction de 150 000 euros, TRJ 2022)","short_name":"Conseil d'État upholds Betclic's EUR 150,000 payout-cap fine","aliases":["Betclic Conseil d'État 11 juin 2026","Betclic 150 000 euros ANJ TRJ Coupe du monde"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"FR","state":"","court":"Conseil d'État, 5e-6e chambres réunies","level":"supreme"},"docket":"500722 (ANJ decision 2024/023)","filed":"2025-01-20","category":"regulator-court","case_type":"operator-v-regulator","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Betclic Enterprises Limited (Dreuzy Avocats)","defendants":["Autorité nationale des jeux"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"Jacques-Henri Stahl (président); Carole Hentzgen (rapporteure); Maxime Boutron (rapporteur public)"},"claims":["Loi 2010-476 art. 13 II and 43 IV-V","Décret 2020-1349 art. 25, 27, 28","force majeure (2022 World Cup results)","proportionality"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2026-06-11","money":{"fund":"","currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":"EUR 150,000 fine confirmed (0.3 point above 85%, about EUR 9m extra payouts, under 0.07% of EUR 224,140,000 licensed turnover 2022)"},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://www.conseil-etat.fr/fr/arianeweb/CE/decision/2026-06-11/500722","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://www.anj.fr/sites/default/files/2024-11/D%C3%A9cision%20n%202024-023%20du%2014%20novembre%202024.pdf"],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"Betclic, France's largest online bookmaker, returned 85.30% of stakes to players in 2022 against a 85% cap and was fined EUR 150,000 on 14 November 2024. Before the Conseil d'État it argued the World Cup calendar and results were unforeseeable external events. The court rejected the appeal on 11 June 2026: a 'normally prudent operator' must anticipate such risks and equip itself to prevent a year-end overshoot; the fine, below 0.07% of turnover, is not excessive. First Conseil d'État ruling on the scope of its review of ANJ sanctions.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-FR-0015","GL-FR-0008"],"sources":[{"claim":"CE 11 June 2026 n° 500722: requête rejetée, reasoning on foreseeability and proportionality; CE n° 500722, 5e-6e ch. réunies, lecture du 11 juin 2026, président Jacques-Henri Stahl, rapporteure Carole Hentzgen, rapporteur public Maxime Boutron; Betclic Enterprises Limited (Dreuzy Avocats) v. ANJ; requête sommaire 20 Jan 2025; ANJ decision 2024/023 of 14 Nov 2024, 150 000 euros; 0,3 point, about 9 million euros extra winnings, turnover 224 140 000 euros, fine below 0,07 %; World Cup 'pouvant et devant être anticipé par un opérateur normalement avisé'; art. 1er: requête rejetée. ANJ decision 202","url":"https://www.conseil-etat.fr/fr/arianeweb/CE/decision/2026-06-11/500722","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"ANJ decision 2024/023 of 14 Nov 2024: EUR 150,000, 85.30%","url":"https://www.anj.fr/sites/default/files/2024-11/D%C3%A9cision%20n%202024-023%20du%2014%20novembre%202024.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"Betclic's filings 20 Jan, 18 Apr, 12 Sept 2025","url":"https://kohenavocats.fr/?p=2119692","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"}],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/regulator-court/betclic-v-anj-conseil-d-etat-500722-trj-sanction/"},{"id":"GL-FR-0021","slug":"commune-de-berck-sur-mer-v-grand-casino-de-dinant-ce-503317","title":"Commune de Berck-sur-Mer c/ Société du Grand Casino de Dinant (renouvellement de la DSP du casino, biens de retour)","short_name":"Conseil d'État: a casino building owned by Partouche is a 'bien de retour' of the commune","aliases":["casino Berck-sur-Mer Partouche Conseil d'État 2025","biens de retour casino tiers"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"FR","state":"","court":"Conseil d'État, 7e-2e chambres réunies","level":"supreme"},"docket":"503317","filed":"2025","category":"licensing-administrative","case_type":"operator-v-regulator","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Commune de Berck-sur-Mer (pourvoi); Société Jean Metz and Groupe Partouche intervening","defendants":["Société du Grand Casino de Dinant (candidate bidder)"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"Jacques-Henri Stahl (président); Alexandre Denieul (rapporteur); Nicolas Labrune (rapporteur public)"},"claims":["Code de la commande publique (équal treatment of bidders)","Code de justice administrative art. L. 551-1 (référé précontractuel)","theory of biens de retour"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2025-07-17","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":"EUR 3,000 costs against the commune"},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://www.conseil-etat.fr/fr/arianeweb/CE/decision/2025-07-17/503317","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":[],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"Partouche bought Berck's former bus station in 1997, converted it into the casino and leased it to its subsidiary Jean Metz, the concession holder since 2005. When the commune retendered in December 2024 it required bidders to hold title or a lease on the building; the Lille référé judge annulled the procedure on 25 March 2025. The Conseil d'État rejected the commune's appeal but, in a published ruling, held that assets necessary to a casino concession are biens de retour belonging to the commune even when owned by a third party closely tied to the concessionaire. The ruling reshaped the end-of-concession economics of French casino groups.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-FR-0004","GL-FR-0022","GL-FR-0025"],"sources":[{"claim":"CE 17 July 2025 n° 503317, published in Lebon: pourvoi rejeté; biens de retour; casino games not a public service per se; CE n° 503317, 17 July 2025, 7e-2e ch. réunies, Stahl / Denieul / Labrune, publié au recueil Lebon; pourvoi of commune de Berck-sur-Mer against TA Lille référé order n° 2502084 of 25 March 2025 (L. 551-1 CJA); interventions of Jean Metz and Groupe Partouche admitted; pourvoi rejeté; 3 000 euros to Société du Grand Casino de Dinant; casino games 'ne constituent pas en eux-mêmes un service public' but assets necessary to the concession are biens de retour even when owned by a ","url":"https://www.conseil-etat.fr/fr/arianeweb/CE/decision/2025-07-17/503317","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/licensing-administrative/commune-de-berck-sur-mer-v-grand-casino-de-dinant-ce-503317/"},{"id":"GL-FR-0019","slug":"la-francaise-des-jeux-v-anj-ce-489680-489681","title":"La Française des jeux c/ Autorité nationale des jeux (programme des jeux 2024 et stratégie promotionnelle 2023)","short_name":"Conseil d'État confirms ANJ power to curb FDJ's scratch cards and 'good cause' advertising","aliases":["FDJ Conseil d'État 11 février 2025","ANJ Mission Patrimoine publicité interdite","FDJ jeux de grattage ANJ"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"FR","state":"","court":"Conseil d'État, 5e-6e chambres réunies","level":"supreme"},"docket":"489680; 489681, 489682, 489683","filed":"2023","category":"advertising-marketing","case_type":"operator-v-regulator","parties":{"plaintiffs":"La Française des jeux (LFDJ)","defendants":["Autorité nationale des jeux"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"Ségolène Cavaliere (rapporteure); Maxime Boutron (rapporteur public)"},"claims":["Code de la sécurité intérieure art. L. 320-3 (prevention of excessive gambling)","ANJ decisions 2023-165 (programme 2024), 2023-163/2023-200 (promotional strategy 2023), 2023-158, 2023-166 (Mission Patrimoine, Mission nature)"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2025-02-11","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://www.conseil-etat.fr/fr/arianeweb/CE/decision/2025-02-11/489680","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://www.conseil-etat.fr/fr/arianeweb/CE/decision/2025-02-11/489681"],"regulator":"https://anj.fr/le-conseil-detat-confirme-le-pouvoir-dencadrement-de-loffre-de-jeux-et-de-la-strategie","press":[]},"summary":"The lottery monopoly challenged the conditions the ANJ attached to its 2024 game programme (stabilising certain scratch-card ranges, modifying or withdrawing the most excessive games, limits on Olympic-themed promotion) and the ban on advertising that refers to the good causes funded by the games (heritage, nature). The Conseil d'État rejected all requests on 11 February 2025: the restrictions are proportionate to the objective of preventing excessive gambling, the ANJ could lawfully prohibit 'good cause' advertising, and its approval decisions need no formal reasoning. The rulings settle the ANJ's authority over the monopolies' commercial strategy.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-FR-0012","GL-FR-0008"],"sources":[{"claim":"CE n° 489680: requête de LFDJ rejetée (programme 2024, décision ANJ 2023-165); CE n° 489680, 11 Feb 2025, 5e-6e ch. réunies, Stahl / Cavaliere / Boutron, LFDJ v. ANJ decision 2023-165 of 22 June 2023 (programme 2024), requête rejetée, no costs; CE n° 489681-489683 same day (https://www.conseil-etat.fr/fr/arianeweb/CE/decision/2025-02-11/489681): ANJ decisions 2023-163 of 25 May 2023 and 2023-200 of 21 Sept 2023 (promotional strategy), 2023-166 of 22 June 2023 and 2023-201 (Mission nature), 2023-158 of 25 May 2023 and 2023-198 (Mission Patrimoine); 'Les requêtes de la société La Française des j","url":"https://www.conseil-etat.fr/fr/arianeweb/CE/decision/2025-02-11/489680","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"CE n° 489681-489683: requêtes rejetées; ANJ could lawfully ban reference to good causes","url":"https://www.conseil-etat.fr/fr/arianeweb/CE/decision/2025-02-11/489681","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"ANJ release 14 Feb 2025","url":"https://anj.fr/le-conseil-detat-confirme-le-pouvoir-dencadrement-de-loffre-de-jeux-et-de-la-strategie","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/advertising-marketing/la-francaise-des-jeux-v-anj-ce-489680-489681/"},{"id":"GL-FR-0012","slug":"betting-and-gaming-council-v-fdj-exclusive-rights-ce-436441","title":"The Betting and Gaming Council c/ Premier ministre et La Française des jeux (décrets de privatisation, droits exclusifs 25 ans, aide d'État)","short_name":"FDJ monopoly and EUR 380m exclusive-rights payment upheld by the Conseil d'État","aliases":["FDJ privatisation Conseil d'État","FDJ 380 millions droits exclusifs recours","Betting and Gaming Council FDJ"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"FR","state":"","court":"Conseil d'État, 5e-6e chambres réunies","level":"supreme"},"docket":"436439, 436441, 436449","filed":"2019-12","category":"licensing-administrative","case_type":"operator-v-regulator","parties":{"plaintiffs":"The Betting and Gaming Council (UK operators' body); Betclic Enterprises Ltd intervening","defendants":["Premier ministre / ministre de l'économie","La Française des jeux (FDJ)"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":""},"claims":["Art. 49 and 56 TFEU (freedom of establishment and services)","Art. 107-108 TFEU (unnotified state aid, standstill)","Loi PACTE 2019 art. 137; ordonnance 2019-1015; décrets 2019-1060 and 2019-1061 of 17 Oct 2019"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2025-09-30","money":{"fund":"","currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":"EUR 380m paid by FDJ for 25-year exclusive rights (cahier des charges art. 3), raised by EUR 97m after the Commission procedure; BGC ordered to pay EUR 3,000 each to the State and FDJ"},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://www.conseil-etat.fr/fr/arianeweb/CE/decision/2025-09-30/436441","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://www.conseil-etat.fr/Media/actualites/documents/2023/avril-2023/436439_436441_436449.pdf"],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"When FDJ was privatised in 2019 it received 25-year exclusive rights over lotteries and retail sports betting for EUR 380m. The UK Betting and Gaming Council attacked the implementing decrees. On 14 April 2023 the Conseil d'État held the monopoly compatible with EU law and the 25-year term not excessive, rejected most pleas, but stayed the state-aid plea pending the European Commission's formal investigation (SA.56399, SA.56634). After the Commission found no aid on 31 October 2024 (France having raised the payment by EUR 97m), the Conseil d'État rejected the remaining claim on 30 September 2025, closing the last privatisation challenge.","significance":"pending-landmark","related_cases":["GL-FR-0013","GL-EU-0341","GL-EU-0340"],"sources":[{"claim":"CE 14 April 2023: art. 2 sursis à statuer on 436441 pending SA.56399/SA.56634; surplus and 436449 rejected; 380,000,000 euros","url":"https://www.conseil-etat.fr/Media/actualites/documents/2023/avril-2023/436439_436441_436449.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"CE 30 Sept 2025 n° 436441: requête rejetée; Commission Decision (EU) 2025/892 found no aid after EUR 97m increase; CE n° 436441, 5e-6e chambres réunies, 30 Sept 2025, ECLI:FR:CECHR:2025:436441.20250930, tables: Betclic intervention admitted, BGC requête rejetée, 3 000 euros each to the State and LFDJ; indemnity 380 millions (art. 3 cahier des charges) raised by 97 millions (avenant n° 1, décret 30 April 2025); Commission Decision (EU) 2025/892 of 31 Oct 2024 (SA.56399, SA.56634) found no aid. CE 14 April 2023 (nos 436439, 436441, 436449, PDF): art. 2 sursis à statuer on 436441 pending SA.56399","url":"https://www.conseil-etat.fr/fr/arianeweb/CE/decision/2025-09-30/436441","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/licensing-administrative/betting-and-gaming-council-v-fdj-exclusive-rights-ce-436441/"},{"id":"GL-FR-0013","slug":"egba-sps-betting-betclic-v-ordonnance-2019-1015-ce-436434","title":"European Gaming and Betting Association, SPS Betting France Ltd et Betclic Enterprises Ltd c/ ordonnance n° 2019-1015 et décrets FDJ/PMU","short_name":"EGBA, Kindred and Betclic challenge the 2019 gambling reform; ordinance annulled in one point","aliases":["EGBA Conseil d'État FDJ 2023","ordonnance 2019-1015 annulation partielle","Betclic décret 2019-1061"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"FR","state":"","court":"Conseil d'État, 5e-6e chambres réunies","level":"supreme"},"docket":"436434, 436450, 436814, 436822, 436866","filed":"2019-12","category":"licensing-administrative","case_type":"operator-v-regulator","parties":{"plaintiffs":"European Gaming and Betting Association; SPS Betting France Ltd (Kindred/Unibet); Betclic Enterprises Ltd","defendants":["Premier ministre","La Française des jeux","Pari Mutuel Urbain"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":""},"claims":["Art. 49 and 56 TFEU","Code de la sécurité intérieure art. L. 320-9-1","abuse of dominance, equality, freedom of enterprise"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2023-04-14","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://www.conseil-etat.fr/fr/arianeweb/CE/decision/2023-04-14/436434","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":[],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"In parallel to the BGC case, the European operators' association, Kindred's French entity and Betclic attacked the 2019 ordinance reorganising gambling regulation and the decrees on FDJ's state supervision and on the FDJ/PMU game offer. The Conseil d'État held FDJ's exclusive rights justified by public-health and public-order objectives under close state control, but annulled the ordinance insofar as it failed to apply the second paragraph of art. L. 320-9-1 II CSI to the 5° category of games (an unjustified incoherence contrary to arts. 49 and 56 TFEU); all other claims, including those against the two decrees, were rejected.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-FR-0012","GL-EU-0340"],"sources":[{"claim":"CE 14 April 2023 n° 436434: partial annulment of ordonnance 2019-1015; requêtes 436814, 436822, 436866 rejetées; CE 14 April 2023, nos 436434, 436450, 436814, 436822, 436866, 5e-6e ch. réunies, ECLI:FR:CECHR:2023:436434.20230414: EGBA (436434), SPS Betting France (436450, 436866), Betclic (436814, 436822); art. 1er: ordonnance 2019-1015 annulée 'en tant qu'elle ne prévoit pas que le deuxième alinéa du II de l'article L. 320-9-1 ... s'applique au 5° du I'; art. 2-3: surplus and requêtes 436814, 436822, 436866 rejetées; no costs","url":"https://www.conseil-etat.fr/fr/arianeweb/CE/decision/2023-04-14/436434","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/licensing-administrative/egba-sps-betting-betclic-v-ordonnance-2019-1015-ce-436434/"},{"id":"GL-FR-0008","slug":"afjel-v-arjel-code-de-la-consommation-ce-431786","title":"Association française du jeu en ligne (AFJEL) c/ ARJEL / ANJ (délibération du 18 avril 2019, code de la consommation)","short_name":"Conseil d'État: consumer law applies to online gambling and the ANJ can enforce it","aliases":["AFJEL Conseil d'État 2021","droit de la consommation jeux d'argent ANJ"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"FR","state":"","court":"Conseil d'État, 5e-6e chambres réunies","level":"supreme"},"docket":"431786","filed":"2019","category":"regulator-court","case_type":"operator-v-regulator","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Association française du jeu en ligne (AFJEL, licensed operators' association)","defendants":["Autorité nationale des jeux (successor of ARJEL)"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":""},"claims":["recours pour excès de pouvoir against soft-law délibération","Code de la consommation (clauses abusives, pratiques commerciales déloyales)","loi 2010-476 art. 43 (sanctions)"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2021-03-24","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/ceta/id/CETATEXT000043289902","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":[],"regulator":"https://anj.fr/le-conseil-detat-confirme-lapplicabilite-du-droit-de-la-consommation-en-matiere-de-jeux-dargent","press":[]},"summary":"The operators' association challenged ARJEL's April 2019 communication stating that the Code de la consommation applies to the operator-player relationship and that breaches could be prosecuted before the sanctions commission. The Conseil d'État admitted the action against this soft-law act but rejected it on the merits: operators are 'professionnels' and players 'consommateurs', and the ANJ college may refer any breach of rules applicable to the activity to its sanctions commission. The ruling underpins the ANJ's later bonus, advertising and self-exclusion enforcement.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-FR-0016","GL-FR-0018"],"sources":[{"claim":"CE 24 March 2021 n° 431786, requête rejetée; CE n° 431786, 5e et 6e chambres réunies, lecture du 24 mars 2021, ECLI:FR:CECHR:2021:431786.20210324, mentionné aux tables; AFJEL v. ANJ; délibération ARJEL 18 April 2019 'susceptible de faire l'objet d'un recours pour excès de pouvoir'; operator 'professionnel', player 'consommateur'; art. 1er: requête rejetée; no costs. ANJ release 7 April 2021 confirms","url":"https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/ceta/id/CETATEXT000043289902","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"ANJ release 7 April 2021","url":"https://anj.fr/le-conseil-detat-confirme-lapplicabilite-du-droit-de-la-consommation-en-matiere-de-jeux-dargent","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/regulator-court/afjel-v-arjel-code-de-la-consommation-ce-431786/"},{"id":"GL-FR-0029","slug":"casino-de-la-pointe-croisette-v-heirs-exception-de-jeu-19-20-644","title":"Société Cannes centre Croisette (Casino de la Pointe Croisette) c/ ayants droit de G. D. (chèques impayés, exception de jeu)","short_name":"Cour de cassation: casino cannot recover EUR 170,000 of cheques that were loans to gamble","aliases":["casino chèques impayés exception de jeu 2021","Cass 8 avril 2021 19-20.644 casino"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"FR","state":"","court":"Cour de cassation, première chambre civile (on appeal from Cour d'appel d'Aix-en-Provence, 2 May 2019)","level":"supreme"},"docket":"19-20.644 (ECLI:FR:CCASS:2021:C100291)","filed":"2014-04-02","category":"refund-claims","case_type":"individual","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Société Cannes centre Croisette, formerly Casino de la Pointe Croisette (casino)","defendants":["heirs of G. D., a regular player 2010-2012 (Syria)"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":""},"claims":["Code civil art. 1965 (exception de jeu)","protocole transactionnel of 1 Aug 2012 for EUR 170,000 of dishonoured cheques"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2021-04-08","money":{"fund":"","currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":"EUR 170,000 claim rejected; casino bears costs"},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/juri/id/JURITEXT000043401138","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":[],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"A Cannes casino sued a self-described compulsive player's estate on a 2012 settlement for fourteen bounced cheques totalling EUR 170,000. The Cour de cassation restated its rule: a client of a casino whose activity is authorised and regulated cannot invoke the exception de jeu, except where the debt relates to loans the casino granted to feed the game; because none of the cheques appeared in the chip purchase log, they were loans, and the claim failed. Published (F-P), it is the modern anchor for the casino side of the art. 1965 line.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-FR-0028"],"sources":[{"claim":"full text Cass. 1re civ. 8 April 2021 n° 19-20.644, F-P, rejet, ECLI:FR:CCASS:2021:C100291 (official text reproduced by Dalloz)","url":"https://www.dalloz-actualite.fr/document/civ-1re-8-avr-2021-f-p-n-19-20644","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"Cass. 1re civ. 8 avril 2021, pourvoi 19-20.644, arrêt n° 291 F-P, ECLI:FR:CCASS:2021:C100291, publié au bulletin; société Cannes centre Croisette anciennement Casino de la Pointe Croisette v. ayants droit de G. D.; CA Aix-en-Provence ch. 3-4, 2 May 2019; fourteen cheques, 170 000 euros, protocole 1er août 2012, cheques rejected 11 July 2012, assignation 2 April 2014; rejet, dépens on the casino; Cass. 1re civ. 8 April 2021, 19-20.644, ECLI:FR:CCASS:2021:C100291, F-P, publié au bulletin; société Cannes centre Croisette; CA Aix-en-Provence 2 May 2019; 170 000 euros, fourteen cheques, protocole 1","url":"https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/juri/id/JURITEXT000043401138","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/refund-claims/casino-de-la-pointe-croisette-v-heirs-exception-de-jeu-19-20-644/"},{"id":"GL-FR-0005","slug":"betclic-v-pmu-autorite-de-la-concurrence-14-d-04","title":"Décision n° 14-D-04, Betclic Everest Group c/ GIE Pari Mutuel Urbain (engagements, masses d'enjeux)","short_name":"Betclic forces PMU to separate online and retail betting pools","aliases":["PMU masse commune Betclic","14-D-04 PMU engagements"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"FR","state":"","court":"Autorité de la concurrence","level":"regulatory-court"},"docket":"14-D-04 (saisine 12/0001 F)","filed":"2012-01-02","category":"antitrust","case_type":"regulator-v-operator","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Betclic Everest Group (complainant); Autorité de la concurrence","defendants":["GIE Pari Mutuel Urbain"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":""},"claims":["Art. 102 TFEU","Code de commerce art. L. 420-2 (abus de position dominante)","Code de commerce art. L. 464-2 I (engagements)"],"status":"settled-final","status_date":"2014-02-25","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://www.autoritedelaconcurrence.fr/sites/default/files/commitments//14d04.pdf","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":[],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"Betclic complained in January 2012 that PMU, holder of the retail horse-betting monopoly, pooled the stakes of its online horse bets with its vastly larger retail pools, giving online punters higher liquidity than any licensed competitor could offer. The Autorité accepted PMU's commitments (October 2013, revised January 2014) to separate its online pool from its other channels and closed the case. PMU's later breach of commitment no. 1 led to the 2020 fine annulled by the Cour d'appel in 2021 (GL-FR-0007), and the same conduct grounded Betclic's damages action (GL-FR-0006).","significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-FR-0006","GL-FR-0007","GL-EU-0340"],"sources":[{"claim":"decision text: commitments accepted, saisine 12/0001F closed; Décision n° 14-D-04 du 25 février 2014; saisine of Betclic Everest Group registered 2 Jan 2012 as 12/0001F; preliminary assessment 4 Oct 2013, PMU commitments 28 Oct 2013 revised 22 and 28 Jan 2014 and at the hearing of 29 Jan 2014; art. 1: commitments accepted and made binding; art. 2: 'La saisine enregistrée sous le numéro 12/0001F est close'","url":"https://www.autoritedelaconcurrence.fr/sites/default/files/commitments//14d04.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/antitrust/betclic-v-pmu-autorite-de-la-concurrence-14-d-04/"},{"id":"GL-FR-0002","slug":"societe-plombinoise-de-casino-qpc-2010-53","title":"Décision n° 2010-53 QPC, Société Plombinoise de Casino (prélèvements sur le produit des jeux)","short_name":"Plombinoise de Casino QPC on casino levies","aliases":["QPC prélèvement casinos 2010","validation législative prélèvements jeux casinos"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"FR","state":"","court":"Conseil constitutionnel (QPC referred by Conseil d'État 16 July 2010)","level":"supreme"},"docket":"2010-53 QPC","filed":"2010-07-16","category":"tax","case_type":"constitutional","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Société Plombinoise de Casino","defendants":["État (loi n° 2009-888 du 22 juillet 2009, art. 27 III)"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":""},"claims":["Déclaration de 1789 art. 8, 13, 16 (retroactive validation of casino levies)"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2010-10-14","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/decision/2010/201053QPC.htm","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":[],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"A casino operator attacked the retroactive legislative validation of the municipal and state levies on casino gross gaming revenue, whose base and collection rules had been set by regulation rather than statute. The Conseil constitutionnel upheld the validation: it respects final judgments, creates no retroactive penalty and pursues a sufficient general interest (avoiding refunds amounting to unjust enrichment and preserving equality among casinos). It closed the main tax-refund avenue for French casinos on pre-2009 levies.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-FR-0001"],"sources":[{"claim":"QPC decision 14 Oct 2010, provision conform, referred by CE on 16 July 2010; Décision 2010-53 QPC du 14 octobre 2010, referred by the Conseil d'État on 16 July 2010 (n° 339899), Société Plombinoise de Casino; paragraph III of article 27 of loi 2009-888 of 22 July 2009 declared conform","url":"https://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/decision/2010/201053QPC.htm","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/tax/societe-plombinoise-de-casino-qpc-2010-53/"},{"id":"GL-FR-0001","slug":"conseil-constitutionnel-2010-605-dc-loi-jeux-en-ligne","title":"Décision n° 2010-605 DC, Loi relative à l'ouverture à la concurrence et à la régulation du secteur des jeux d'argent et de hasard en ligne","short_name":"Conseil constitutionnel upholds the 2010 online gambling law","aliases":["loi 2010-476 conseil constitutionnel","2010-605 DC jeux en ligne"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"FR","state":"","court":"Conseil constitutionnel","level":"supreme"},"docket":"2010-605 DC","filed":"2010-04-13","category":"licensing-administrative","case_type":"constitutional","parties":{"plaintiffs":"60 députés (groupe socialiste), référence art. 61 al. 2 Constitution","defendants":["Loi n° 2010-476 du 12 mai 2010 (Government of France)"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":""},"claims":["Constitution art. 88-1 (EU law compatibility)","Déclaration de 1789 art. 13 (égalité devant les charges publiques, art. 47-48 levies)","art. 1, 26, 47, 48 of the law"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2010-05-12","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/decision/2010/2010605DC.htm","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":[],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"Sixty deputies challenged the law that opened French online sports betting, horse betting and poker to licensed competition and created ARJEL. The Conseil constitutionnel held the law conforms to the Constitution: it has no power to review compatibility with EU law (that is for ordinary courts), and the levies of 5.7% on bets and 1.8% on online circle games create no 'rupture caractérisée' of equality before public burdens. The decision is the constitutional foundation of the French licensing model.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-FR-0002","GL-EU-0340"],"sources":[{"claim":"decision of 12 May 2010, articles 1, 26, 47, 48 conform; EU-law plea not a constitutional grievance; Décision 2010-605 DC du 12 mai 2010, saisine par 60 députés on 13 April 2010; articles 1er, 26, 47, 48 'conformes à la Constitution'; levies 5.7% (bets) and 1.8% (online cercle games) in art. 302 bis ZK CGI; Conseil does not review compatibility with EU law (cons. 16)","url":"https://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/decision/2010/2010605DC.htm","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/licensing-administrative/conseil-constitutionnel-2010-605-dc-loi-jeux-en-ligne/"},{"id":"GL-FR-0004","slug":"groupe-partouche-v-commune-de-lille-ce-341562","title":"SA Groupe Partouche c/ Commune de Lille (casino de Lille, délégation de service public)","short_name":"Conseil d'État: casino concessions are public service delegations (Lille)","aliases":["casino Lille Partouche Barrière Conseil d'État 2012","jeux de casino service public"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"FR","state":"","court":"Conseil d'État, 7e et 2e sous-sections réunies","level":"supreme"},"docket":"341562","filed":"2010","category":"licensing-administrative","case_type":"operator-v-regulator","parties":{"plaintiffs":"SA Groupe Partouche (unsuccessful bidder)","defendants":["Commune de Lille","Société Lilloise d'Animation Touristique (Groupe Lucien Barrière, intervener)"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":""},"claims":["Code général des collectivités territoriales art. L. 1411-1 ff (délégation de service public)","loi du 15 juin 1907 (casinos)"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2012-03-19","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":"EUR 3,000 costs awarded against Partouche (art. L. 761-1 CJA)"},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://www.conseil-etat.fr/fr/arianeweb/CE/decision/2012-03-19/341562","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":[],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"Partouche lost the 2006 Lille casino tender to Barrière and challenged the contract. The Conseil d'État rejected the pourvoi and fixed the governing rule: casino games are not in themselves a public service, but the agreement a commune must conclude for a casino is a délégation de service public when the operator takes on general-interest missions and is paid substantially from operating results; hotel and entertainment services may be bundled as accessories. Every French casino licensing dispute since is decided on this basis.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-FR-0021","GL-FR-0022","GL-FR-0025"],"sources":[{"claim":"decision published in the Recueil, rejection, DSP qualification","url":"https://www.revuegeneraledudroit.eu/blog/decisions/conseil-detat-ssr-19-mars-2012-sa-partouche-requete-numero-341562-publie-au-recueil","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"CE n° 341562, lecture du 19 mars 2012, 7ème et 2ème sous-sections réunies, publié au recueil Lebon, ECLI:FR:CESSR:2012:341562.20120319; art. 1: pourvoi de la SA Groupe Partouche rejeté; art. 2: 3 000 euros payable to Société Lilloise d'Animation Touristique; Official ArianeWeb text of the decision; revuegeneraledudroit is a reproduction","url":"https://www.conseil-etat.fr/fr/arianeweb/CE/decision/2012-03-19/341562","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/licensing-administrative/groupe-partouche-v-commune-de-lille-ce-341562/"},{"id":"GL-GB-0024","slug":"new-lottery-company-v-gambling-commission-cat","title":"The New Lottery Company Ltd, Northern & Shell plc and The Health Lottery ELM Ltd v Gambling Commission (Competition Appeal Tribunal)","short_name":"TNLC v Gambling Commission (subsidy control, CAT)","aliases":["cat 14 2026 lottery subsidy","health lottery subsidy control allwyn"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"GB","state":"England and Wales","court":"Competition Appeal Tribunal","level":"regulatory-court"},"docket":"[2026] CAT 14; Case No 1730/12/13/25","filed":"2025-05-08","category":"lottery","case_type":"operator-v-regulator","parties":{"plaintiffs":"The New Lottery Company Ltd, Northern & Shell plc, The Health Lottery ELM Ltd","defendants":["Gambling Commission"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"Bacon J (President), Ben Tidswell, Derek Ridyard"},"claims":["Subsidy Control Act 2022 s.70 review of the Commission's decision of 19 July 2023 allowing Camelot to retain GBP 70.21m of National Lottery revenues (otherwise due to the National Lottery Distribution Fund) for marketing; alleged subsidy to Camelot and Allwyn; declarations and a recovery order sought"],"status":"dismissed","status_date":"2026-02-26","money":{"fund":"","currency":"GBP","attorney_fees":"","payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://www.catribunal.org.uk/sites/cat/files/2026-02/1730121325%20The%20New%20Lottery%20Company%20Ltd%20and%20Others%20v%20the%20Gambling%20Commission%20-%20Judgment%20%2026%20Feb%202026.pdf","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":[],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"A parallel challenge under the Subsidy Control Act 2022, issued on 8 May 2025 and heard on 10-11 December 2025, alleged that the Commission's decision of 19 July 2023 to let Camelot keep GBP 70.21m of lottery revenue for marketing was an unlawful subsidy to Camelot and Allwyn (interveners Camelot, Allwyn UK Holding B and Allwyn Entertainment). The Tribunal (Bacon J, Tidswell, Ridyard) unanimously dismissed the application on 26 February 2026, finding the decision consistent with normal market conditions and the proceedings in any event late.","significance":"first-of-kind","related_cases":["GL-GB-0023"],"sources":[{"claim":"CAT judgment: parties, hearing dates, unanimous dismissal","url":"https://www.catribunal.org.uk/sites/cat/files/2026-02/1730121325%20The%20New%20Lottery%20Company%20Ltd%20and%20Others%20v%20the%20Gambling%20Commission%20-%20Judgment%20%2026%20Feb%202026.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"open":[],"status_read_from_records":true,"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/lottery/new-lottery-company-v-gambling-commission-cat/"},{"id":"GL-GB-0017","slug":"ashton-v-betfair","title":"Ashton and others v TSE Malta LP (Betfair)","short_name":"Ashton v Betfair (Luke Ashton death, duty of care)","aliases":["luke ashton betfair case","annie ashton betfair high court","betfair suicide lawsuit"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"GB","state":"England and Wales","court":"High Court (King's Bench Division)","level":"first-instance"},"docket":"[2026] EWHC 2935 (KB); KB-2024-001178","filed":"2024","category":"addiction-duty-of-care","case_type":"individual","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Ann-Marie Ashton (widow, for the estate), a minor child of Luke Ashton (name withheld), India Rose Panczel","defendants":["TSE Malta LP t/a Betfair"],"class_counsel":["Leigh Day (claimants' solicitors); counsel Jeremy Hyam KC, Jesse Nicholls, Rebekah Lee"],"defense_counsel":["Keystone Law; counsel Jonathan Hough KC, James Potts, Viktoria Winzer"],"judge":"Swift J"},"claims":["negligence under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934 and Fatal Accidents Act 1976"],"status":"dismissed","status_date":"2026-11-13","money":{"fund":"","currency":"GBP","attorney_fees":"","payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":"no damages (claim dismissed, para 87); deposits about GBP 6,200 and losses about GBP 5,000 (Jun-Jul 2019), deposits just over GBP 9,800 and losses just under GBP 7,500 (Jan-Apr 2021); 2019 deposits GBP 15,000 and losses GBP 11,100 overall"},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/kb/2026/2935","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":[],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"Luke Ashton died by suicide on 22 April 2021 after gambling on the Betfair exchange; a 2023 coroner's conclusion criticised Betfair. His family sued in negligence and the trial ran in June 2026. On 13 November 2026 Swift J dismissed the claim: an operator's duty is limited to preventing severe gambling disorder when it is foreseeable, the evidence did not establish that Mr Ashton had gambling disorder, and Gambling Commission standards are an inapt starting point for the tortious standard of care.","significance":"pending-landmark","related_cases":["GL-GB-0016","GL-GB-0001","GL-GB-0018"],"sources":[{"claim":"judgment 13 Nov 2026, parties, facts, holdings, dismissal","url":"https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/kb/2026/2935","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"open":["whether the claimants seek permission to appeal","exact claim issue date"],"status_read_from_records":true,"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/addiction-duty-of-care/ashton-v-betfair/"},{"id":"GL-GB-0057","slug":"grogan-v-ig-index","title":"Grogan v IG Index Ltd","short_name":"Grogan v IG Index (spread betting, GBP 1.08m losses, vulnerability)","aliases":["spread betting gambling addiction claim ig index 2026"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"GB","state":"England and Wales","court":"High Court (Business List, Manchester)","level":"first-instance"},"docket":"[2026] EWHC 1998 (Ch); BL-2024-MAN-000058","filed":"2024","category":"addiction-duty-of-care","case_type":"individual","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Mark Grogan","defendants":["IG Index Ltd"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"HHJ Pearce"},"claims":["FSMA s.138D breach of COBS 10A appropriateness and COBS 2.1.1R best interests","failure to protect a vulnerable customer","common law duty of care (Calvert, Quinn v IG Index)","fiduciary duty"],"status":"dismissed","status_date":"2026-07-31","money":{"fund":"","currency":"GBP","attorney_fees":"","payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":"deposits GBP 1,751,731.37 and losses GBP 1,082,511.74 (May 2018-Jan 2022); claim dismissed"},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/ch/2026/1998","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":[],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"A self-described gambling addict who lost GBP 1.08m spread betting sued IG under FCA conduct rules and in negligence. HHJ Pearce dismissed the claim on 31 July 2026: no appropriateness breach, no obvious vulnerability that triggered a duty to intervene, and no wider common-law duty beyond the narrow Quinn duty. Spread betting sits under FSMA, not the Gambling Act, but the reasoning tracks Calvert and Gibson.","significance":"routine","related_cases":["GL-GB-0016","GL-GB-0001"],"sources":[{"claim":"judgment, figures, holdings","url":"https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/ch/2026/1998","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"open":[],"status_read_from_records":true,"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/addiction-duty-of-care/grogan-v-ig-index/"},{"id":"GL-GB-0019","slug":"rtm-v-sky-betting-and-gaming","title":"RTM v Bonne Terre Ltd and Hestview Ltd (Sky Betting and Gaming)","short_name":"RTM v Sky Bet (gambler data, consent, cookies)","aliases":["sky bet data protection case","sky betting gaming gdpr problem gambler","rtm v bonne terre"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"GB","state":"England and Wales","court":"UK Supreme Court (permission granted in part), from Court of Appeal [2026] EWCA Civ 488 and High Court [2025] EWHC 111 (KB)","level":"supreme"},"docket":"UKSC/2026/0100; [2026] EWCA Civ 488 (CA-2025-000651); [2025] EWHC 111 (KB) (KB-2023-000775)","filed":"2023","category":"data-breach","case_type":"individual","parties":{"plaintiffs":"RTM (anonymised recovering problem gambler)","defendants":["Bonne Terre Ltd","Hestview Ltd"],"class_counsel":["AWO (solicitors); counsel Christopher Knight, Aarushi Sahore (HC)"],"defense_counsel":["Wiggin LLP; counsel Robin Hopkins, Daniel Isenberg (HC)"],"judge":"Collins Rice J (HC); Dame Victoria Sharp P, Lewison LJ, Warby LJ (CA)"},"claims":["Data Protection Act 1998 and GDPR/UK GDPR (lawful basis, consent, profiling)","PECR 2003 regs 6 and 22 (cookies, direct marketing)","misuse of private information"],"status":"appealed","status_date":"2026-09-28","money":{"fund":"","currency":"GBP","attorney_fees":"","payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":"remedies deferred; liability judgment set aside on appeal"},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2026-0100","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/kb/2025/111","https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/civ/2026/488","https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/RTM-v-Bonne-Terre.Summary.FINAL_.260421.pdf"],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"A recovering problem gambler sued Sky Betting and Gaming over cookies, profiling and roughly twice-daily marketing emails between 2017 and early 2019. After a trial on 11-15 November 2024, Collins Rice J held on 23 January 2025 that his consent was not freely given because of his impaired autonomy and gave judgment on liability for him. The Court of Appeal (Warby LJ, with Sharp P and Lewison LJ agreeing) allowed SBG's appeal on all five grounds on 21 April 2026: consent is an objective test; liability judgment set aside and the case remitted. The Supreme Court granted RTM permission in part on 28 September 2026 on three issues (whether consent is purely objective; procedural fairness in the Court of Appeal; remittal to a different judge); awaiting a hearing date.","significance":"pending-landmark","related_cases":[],"sources":[{"claim":"HC facts and conclusions","url":"https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/kb/2025/111","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"CA summary: appeal allowed, objective consent, remittal","url":"https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/RTM-v-Bonne-Terre.Summary.FINAL_.260421.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"UKSC permission granted in part 28 Sep 2026, awaiting hearing","url":"https://supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2026-0100","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"open":["scope of the issues remitted to the High Court","Supreme Court hearing date"],"status_read_from_records":true,"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/data-breach/rtm-v-sky-betting-and-gaming/"},{"id":"GL-GB-0035","slug":"hmrc-v-hippodrome-casino","title":"HMRC v Hippodrome Casino Ltd","short_name":"Hippodrome Casino v HMRC (VAT partial exemption)","aliases":["hippodrome casino vat case upper tribunal"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"GB","state":"United Kingdom","court":"Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber), from [2022] UKFTT 110 (TC)","level":"appeal"},"docket":"[2024] UKUT 27 (TCC); UT/2022/000081","filed":"2022","category":"tax","case_type":"operator-v-regulator","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs (appellant)","defendants":["Hippodrome Casino Ltd"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"Judge Rupert Jones, Judge Vinesh Mandalia"},"claims":["VAT partial exemption: floorspace-based standard method override for a casino with bars, restaurant and theatre (2012/13-2018/19)"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2024-01-29","money":{"fund":"","currency":"GBP","attorney_fees":"","payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":"HMRC estimated about GBP 447,280 (32%) of residual VAT related to property-unrelated costs; casino's appeals dismissed"},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukut/tcc/2024/27","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":[],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"The Hippodrome recovered input VAT on a floorspace basis, treating its bars, restaurant and theatre as taxable; HMRC said they also supported exempt gaming. On 29 January 2024 the Upper Tribunal allowed HMRC's appeal, set aside the First-tier decision for failing to address dual use, remade the decision and dismissed the casino's underlying appeals against HMRC's decisions.","significance":"routine","related_cases":["GL-GB-0034"],"sources":[{"claim":"UT decision, issue, figures","url":"https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukut/tcc/2024/27","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"open":[],"status_read_from_records":true,"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/tax/hmrc-v-hippodrome-casino/"},{"id":"GL-GB-0013","slug":"longley-v-paddy-power","title":"Longley v PPB Entertainment Ltd and others (Paddy Power)","short_name":"Longley v Paddy Power (GBP 286,000 misheard bet)","aliases":["paddy power 286000 bet case","longley paddy power wolverhampton bet"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"GB","state":"England and Wales","court":"High Court (Queen's Bench Division)","level":"first-instance"},"docket":"[2022] EWHC 977 (QB); QB-2020-000869","filed":"2020","category":"sportsbook","case_type":"individual","parties":{"plaintiffs":"James Robert Longley","defendants":["PPB Entertainment Ltd","PPB Counterparty Services Ltd","PPB Games Ltd"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"Ellenbogen J"},"claims":["breach of betting contract (GBP 257,400 plus interest)","offer and acceptance, unilateral mistake, clause 16 errors term, CRA 2015 fairness"],"status":"dismissed","status_date":"2022-04-29","money":{"fund":"","currency":"GBP","attorney_fees":"","payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":"GBP 257,400 claimed; dismissed. Paddy Power paid GBP 28,600 on the GBP 1,300 each-way bet"},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/qb/2022/977","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":[],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"A telephone operator recorded GBP 13,000 each way instead of GBP 1,300 on Redemptive at Wolverhampton on 21 September 2019; the horse won at 16/1 and GBP 286,000 was credited, then reduced to GBP 28,600. Ellenbogen J held on 29 April 2022 that no contract for the larger stake was formed, that Longley knew of the mistake and 'snapped it up', and that the human-error clause was fair under the CRA 2015. Claim dismissed.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-GB-0012","GL-GB-0015"],"sources":[{"claim":"judgment, bet details, holdings","url":"https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/qb/2022/977","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"open":[],"status_read_from_records":true,"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/sportsbook/longley-v-paddy-power/"},{"id":"GL-GB-0011","slug":"dhir-v-flutter-paddy-power","title":"Dhir v Flutter Entertainment plc (Paddy Power)","short_name":"Dhir v Paddy Power (stolen money gambled, tracing)","aliases":["paddy power tony parente case","dhir flutter paddy power judgment","paddy power did not really care"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"GB","state":"England and Wales","court":"High Court (Queen's Bench Division)","level":"first-instance"},"docket":"[2021] EWHC 1510 (QB); QB-2019-002771","filed":"2019","category":"addiction-duty-of-care","case_type":"individual","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Amarjeet Singh Dhir, businessman who lent money to gambler Tony Parente","defendants":["Flutter Entertainment plc (Paddy Power)"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"Griffiths J"},"claims":["tracing","knowing or unconscionable receipt","unjust enrichment"],"status":"dismissed","status_date":"2021-06-04","money":{"fund":"","currency":"GBP","attorney_fees":"","payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":"claim dismissed, judgment for the defendant; Paddy Power's earlier regulatory settlement with the Gambling Commission was GBP 2.2m (GBP 1.7m in lieu of a penalty plus GBP 0.5m divestment), of which GBP 265,606 and GBP 132,803 related to Parente and the divested sum went to GamCare and Gordon Moody"},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/qb/2021/1510","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":[],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"Dhir advanced millions of dirhams to Tony Parente, who gambled large sums away with Paddy Power in 2015-2016. Griffiths J found Paddy Power knew Parente was gambling like a problem gambler and that his losses were unsustainable, yet kept taking his stakes and giving hospitality; but Dhir was only a creditor, could not trace his money, and the claim failed on 4 June 2021. The case is the clearest judicial record of an operator's knowledge of harm, and of the limits of third-party recovery.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-GB-0016"],"sources":[{"claim":"judgment, findings, GC settlement figures, dismissal","url":"https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/qb/2021/1510","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"open":[],"status_read_from_records":true,"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/addiction-duty-of-care/dhir-v-flutter-paddy-power/"},{"id":"GL-GB-0031","slug":"eu-lotto-lottoland-v-secretary-of-state","title":"EU Lotto Ltd, Lottoland Europe Ltd and Multi Lotto UK Ltd v Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport","short_name":"Lottoland v UK Government (EuroMillions betting ban)","aliases":["lottoland judicial review euromillions","eu lotto v secretary of state 2018"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"GB","state":"England and Wales","court":"High Court (Administrative Court, Divisional Court)","level":"first-instance"},"docket":"[2018] EWHC 3111 (Admin); CO/1118/2018","filed":"2018","category":"lottery","case_type":"constitutional","parties":{"plaintiffs":"EU Lotto Ltd, Lottoland Europe Ltd, Multi Lotto UK Ltd","defendants":["Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"Gross LJ, Green LJ"},"claims":["judicial review of regulation 4 of the Gambling Act 2005 (Operating Licence Conditions) (Amendment) Regulations 2018 (ban on bets on non-UK EuroMillions draws): Article 56 TFEU, unfair consultation"],"status":"dismissed","status_date":"2018-11-15","money":{"fund":"","currency":"GBP","attorney_fees":"","payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/admin/2018/3111","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":[],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"Lottery-betting operators challenged the April 2018 ban on offering British consumers bets on non-UK EuroMillions draws. The Divisional Court held on 15 November 2018 that the ban was a proportionate restriction justified by consumer confusion, 'clear blue water' around the National Lottery, protection of good-causes funding and lead-in risk; the claim failed.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-GB-0030","GL-GB-0021"],"sources":[{"claim":"judgment, measure, grounds, outcome","url":"https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/admin/2018/3111","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"open":[],"status_read_from_records":true,"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/lottery/eu-lotto-lottoland-v-secretary-of-state/"},{"id":"GL-GB-0052","slug":"racing-partnership-v-sis","title":"The Racing Partnership Ltd and others v Sports Information Services Ltd","short_name":"Racing Partnership v SIS (live racing data to bookmakers)","aliases":["trp v sis court of appeal 2020","racing data betting shows confidence case"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"GB","state":"England and Wales","court":"Court of Appeal (Civil Division), from [2019] EWHC 1156 (Ch)","level":"appeal"},"docket":"[2020] EWCA Civ 1300; A3/2019/1764 and 1821","filed":"2017","category":"ip-contracts","case_type":"arbitration-commercial","parties":{"plaintiffs":"The Racing Partnership Ltd, Arena Leisure Ltd, Arena Racing Corporation Ltd","defendants":["Sports Information Services Ltd (also, at first instance, Done Brothers (Cash Betting) Ltd and other bookmakers)"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"Zacaroli J (HC); Lewison LJ, Arnold LJ, Phillips LJ (CA)"},"claims":["breach of confidence in raceday data","copyright and database right","unlawful means conspiracy"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2020-10-09","money":{"fund":"","currency":"GBP","attorney_fees":"","payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/civ/2020/1300","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/ch/2019/1156"],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"After losing its rights to Arena racecourses on 1 January 2017, SIS kept supplying betting shops with live raceday data sourced from the Tote. The Court of Appeal held on 9 October 2020 that the Key Raceday Triggers were confidential and SIS was bound by an obligation of confidence, narrowing the first-instance order, and allowed TRP's cross-appeal on unlawful means conspiracy in part (where the means were misuse of confidential information and breaches of the exchanges' terms). The case defines who owns the data that drives in-shop betting.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":[],"sources":[{"claim":"CA judgment, parties, holding","url":"https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/civ/2020/1300","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"open":[],"status_read_from_records":true,"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/ip-contracts/racing-partnership-v-sis/"},{"id":"GL-GB-0021","slug":"camelot-v-gambling-commission-health-lottery-2012","title":"R (Camelot UK Lotteries Ltd) v Gambling Commission (Health Lottery)","short_name":"Camelot v Gambling Commission 2012 (Health Lottery JR)","aliases":["camelot health lottery judicial review","camelot gambling commission 2012"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"GB","state":"England and Wales","court":"High Court (Administrative Court, Divisional Court)","level":"first-instance"},"docket":"[2012] EWHC 2391 (Admin); CO/3102/2012","filed":"2012","category":"lottery","case_type":"operator-v-regulator","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Camelot UK Lotteries Ltd","defendants":["Gambling Commission"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"Stanley Burnton LJ, Kenneth Parker J"},"claims":["judicial review: refusal to review Health Lottery society licences (Gambling Act 2005 ss.19, 98, 99, 116)"],"status":"dismissed","status_date":"2012-08-22","money":{"fund":"","currency":"GBP","attorney_fees":"","payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/admin/2012/2391","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":[],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"Camelot argued the Health Lottery's 51 community interest companies were a single lottery breaching the s.99 limits and run for private gain. The Divisional Court refused permission on 22 August 2012 for undue delay and lack of merit: the CICs are separate entities and ELM's profit does not make the societies commercial.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-GB-0022","GL-GB-0023"],"sources":[{"claim":"judgment, grounds, refusal of permission","url":"https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/admin/2012/2391","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"open":[],"status_read_from_records":true,"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/lottery/camelot-v-gambling-commission-health-lottery-2012/"},{"id":"GL-GB-0032","slug":"william-hill-v-horserace-betting-levy-board","title":"R (William Hill Organisation Ltd) v Horserace Betting Levy Board (Betfair interested party)","short_name":"William Hill v Levy Board (are Betfair exchange users bookmakers?)","aliases":["betfair levy judicial review william hill","horserace betting levy betting exchange case"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"GB","state":"England and Wales","court":"Court of Appeal (Civil Division), from [2012] EWHC 2039 (Admin)","level":"appeal"},"docket":"[2013] EWCA Civ 487; C1/2012/1999; [2012] EWHC 2039 (Admin)","filed":"2012","category":"regulator-court","case_type":"operator-v-regulator","parties":{"plaintiffs":"William Hill Organisation Ltd and another","defendants":["Horserace Betting Levy Board"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"Moses LJ (lead), Maurice Kay LJ, Davis LJ (CA); Stanley Burnton LJ below"},"claims":["judicial review: whether business users of a betting exchange are bookmakers liable to the levy (Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 s.55)"],"status":"dismissed","status_date":"2013-05-03","money":{"fund":"","currency":"GBP","attorney_fees":"","payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":"William Hill ordered to pay 25% of Betfair's costs"},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/civ/2013/487","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/admin/2012/2039"],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"William Hill sought to make Betfair's professional layers pay the horserace betting levy as 'bookmakers'. Stanley Burnton LJ and then the Court of Appeal (3 May 2013) held that exchange customers do not 'receive or negotiate' bets and are not bookmakers. The dispute drove the later statutory reform of the levy to cover exchanges.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":[],"sources":[{"claim":"CA judgment and costs","url":"https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/civ/2013/487","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"open":[],"status_read_from_records":true,"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/regulator-court/william-hill-v-horserace-betting-levy-board/"},{"id":"GL-GB-0003","slug":"al-tamimi-v-khodari","title":"Al Tamimi v Khodari","short_name":"Al Tamimi v Khodari (casino loans)","aliases":["gaming act 1892 loans gambler","les ambassadeurs loans khodari"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"GB","state":"England and Wales","court":"Court of Appeal (Civil Division)","level":"appeal"},"docket":"[2009] EWCA Civ 1109; A2/2009/0089; HQ08X01090","filed":"2008","category":"premises-patron","case_type":"individual","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Mohamad Khodari (lender, bank manager)","defendants":["Fahad Al Tamimi (gambler)"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"Wilson LJ (lead), Pill LJ, Hooper LJ (CA); Blair J below (judgment 18 Dec 2008)"},"claims":["recovery of loans made at a casino","Gaming Act 1892 s.1","Consumer Credit Act 1974 ss.40 and 140A"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2009-10-08","money":{"fund":"","currency":"GBP","attorney_fees":"","payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":"judgment for GBP 240,500 plus interest upheld"},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/civ/2009/1109","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":[],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"A bank manager lent about GBP 7m over five years to a wealthy gambler at Les Ambassadeurs Club, mostly at night and with a 10 per cent fee. The gambler argued the loans were irrecoverable under the Gaming Act 1892 and unenforceable as unlicensed consumer credit. The Court of Appeal held on 8 October 2009 that loans for future gambling are caught only if stipulated to be used for gambling, that the lending was not a business, and upheld judgment for GBP 240,500.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-GB-0008"],"sources":[{"claim":"judgment and figures","url":"https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/civ/2009/1109","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"open":[],"status_read_from_records":true,"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/premises-patron/al-tamimi-v-khodari/"},{"id":"GL-GB-0007","slug":"playboy-club-v-banca-nazionale-del-lavoro","title":"Banca Nazionale del Lavoro SpA v Playboy Club London Ltd","short_name":"Playboy Club v BNL (casino credit reference)","aliases":["playboy club credit reference case","barakat playboy casino cheques"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"GB","state":"England and Wales","court":"UK Supreme Court (on appeal from [2016] EWCA Civ 457; [2014] EWHC 2613 (QB))","level":"supreme"},"docket":"[2018] UKSC 43","filed":"","category":"premises-patron","case_type":"individual","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Playboy Club London Ltd and associated companies","defendants":["Banca Nazionale del Lavoro SpA"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"Lady Hale, Lord Mance, Lord Sumption, Lord Reed, Lord Briggs"},"claims":["negligent misstatement (Hedley Byrne) over a bank credit reference"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2018-07-26","money":{"fund":"","currency":"GBP","attorney_fees":"","payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":"casino's net loss GBP 802,940 (including gaming duty) not recovered; cheque-cashing facility GBP 800,000 from 13 Oct 2010, raised to GBP 1.25m; bank reference covered GBP 1.6m"},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/uksc/2018/43","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":[],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"The Playboy Club granted customer Hassan Barakat a GBP 1.25m cheque-cashing facility after its agent obtained a bank reference from BNL, which had no basis; his cheques bounced and the club lost GBP 802,940. The Supreme Court held on 26 July 2018 that the bank owed no duty to the undisclosed casino, so the loss stayed with the club.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-GB-0008","GL-GB-0009"],"sources":[{"claim":"judgment, facts, disposition","url":"https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/uksc/2018/43","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"open":[],"status_read_from_records":true,"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/premises-patron/playboy-club-v-banca-nazionale-del-lavoro/"},{"id":"GL-GB-0034","slug":"hmrc-v-london-clubs-management","title":"HMRC v London Clubs Management Ltd","short_name":"London Clubs v HMRC (gaming duty on non-negotiable chips)","aliases":["non negotiable chips gaming duty supreme court","london clubs management 2020 uksc 49"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"GB","state":"United Kingdom","court":"UK Supreme Court (from [2018] EWCA Civ 2210; [2016] UKUT 259 (TCC); [2014] UKFTT 1060 (TC))","level":"supreme"},"docket":"[2020] UKSC 49","filed":"","category":"tax","case_type":"operator-v-regulator","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs (appellant)","defendants":["London Clubs Management Ltd"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"Lord Carnwath, Lady Black, Lady Arden, Lord Kitchin, Lord Sales"},"claims":["gaming duty: whether non-negotiable chips and free bet vouchers are 'stakes staked' and how they are valued (Finance Act 1997 s.11(10))"],"status":"dismissed","status_date":"2020-11-27","money":{"fund":"","currency":"GBP","attorney_fees":"","payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/uksc/2020/49","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":[],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"Casinos hand high rollers non-negotiable chips and free bet vouchers; HMRC said these were stakes at face value for gaming duty. The Supreme Court dismissed HMRC's appeal on 27 November 2020: non-negs are not stakes with money value for s.11(10)(a) and are not valued at face value when returned as prizes.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-GB-0033","GL-GB-0035"],"sources":[{"claim":"judgment, issue, disposition","url":"https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/uksc/2020/49","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"open":[],"status_read_from_records":true,"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/tax/hmrc-v-london-clubs-management/"},{"id":"GL-IE-0002","slug":"kelly-v-boylesports","title":"Kelly v Boylesports Ltd","short_name":"Kelly v Boylesports (punter defamed by 'do not serve' notice)","aliases":["boylesports defamation customer notice","kelly v boylesports 2024 iecc 5"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"IE","state":"Dublin","court":"Dublin Circuit Civil Court","level":"first-instance"},"docket":"[2024] IECC 5; Record No 2020/00493","filed":"2019-09-25","category":"premises-patron","case_type":"individual","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Mark Kelly, regular betting-shop customer","defendants":["Boylesports Ltd"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"Her Honour Judge Jennifer O'Brien"},"claims":["defamation (Defamation Act 2009): internal notice with photographs alleging 'ambiguous bet placement activity', reposted by an employee on Instagram"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2024-06-21","money":{"fund":"","currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":"","payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":"declaration that the plaintiff was defamed; damages EUR 7,500; costs including reserved and discovery costs; no vicarious liability for the employee's Instagram repost"},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://judgments.courts.ie/judgments/documents/39194","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":[],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"In March 2019 Boylesports circulated a notice with Kelly's photograph to all Dublin shops saying he must not be served because of 'ambiguous bet placement activity'; an employee put it on Instagram. On 21 June 2024 the Circuit Court held qualified privilege failed because Boylesports offered no reasonable basis for its belief, declared the plaintiff defamed and awarded EUR 7,500 plus costs, while finding no vicarious liability for the Instagram repost.","significance":"routine","related_cases":[],"sources":[{"claim":"judgment: facts, holding, EUR 7,500 award","url":"https://judgments.courts.ie/judgments/documents/39194","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"open":[],"status_read_from_records":true,"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/premises-patron/kelly-v-boylesports/"},{"id":"GL-IN-0012","slug":"all-india-gaming-federation-v-state-of-tamil-nadu-2023","title":"All India Gaming Federation and others v State of Tamil Nadu and others","short_name":"AIGF v Tamil Nadu (2022 Act upheld, rummy and poker Schedule struck, Madras HC 2023)","aliases":["tamil nadu prohibition of online gambling act 2022 high court","madras high court rummy poker 2023","tnoga act challenge"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"IN","state":"Tamil Nadu","court":"High Court of Judicature at Madras (Division Bench: Sanjay V. Gangapurwala CJ and P.D. Audikesavalu J)","level":"appeal"},"docket":"W.P. Nos. 13203, 13593, 13720, 13722 and 14704 of 2023; Supreme Court SLP (C) Nos. 1588-1592 of 2024 / Civil Appeal Nos. 8275-8279 of 2026","filed":"2023","category":"licensing-administrative","case_type":"constitutional","parties":{"plaintiffs":"All India Gaming Federation; Gameskraft Technologies Pvt Ltd and Vikas Taneja; Play Games 24x7; Head Digital Works; Junglee Games","defendants":["State of Tamil Nadu","Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"Sanjay V. Gangapurwala CJ, P.D. Audikesavalu J"},"claims":["validity of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Online Gambling and Regulation of Online Games Act 2022 (Act 9 of 2023), its Schedule listing rummy and poker as games of chance, Sections 2(i), 2(l)(iv), 7 and 10"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2026-05-27","money":{"fund":"","currency":"INR","attorney_fees":"","payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://images.assettype.com/barandbench/2023-11/0fc1b25a-f95d-427b-a22f-8a78186d2a93/All_India_Gaming_Federation_vs_State.pdf"],"regulator":"","press":["https://www.barandbench.com/news/madras-high-court-upholds-tn-online-gaming-act-cannot-apply-rummy-poker-other-games-skill"]},"summary":"After Junglee Games, Tamil Nadu appointed the Justice K. Chandru committee (10 June 2022, report 27 June 2022) and enacted the 2022 Act (assented 7 April 2023) with a Schedule deeming rummy and poker games of chance. On 9 November 2023 the Madras High Court upheld the Act but set aside the Schedule and read Sections 2(i) and 2(l)(iv) down to games of chance, so rummy and poker could not be banned; Section 10 registration was upheld. On 27 May 2026 the Supreme Court allowed the State's appeal and declared Sections 2(i), 2(l)(iv) and the Schedule intra vires, reinstating the ban on online rummy and poker for stakes in Tamil Nadu.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-IN-0009","GL-IN-0013","GL-IN-0014"],"sources":[{"claim":"judgment dated 09.11.2023, bench, writ petition numbers and operative paragraph 39; copy of the Madras High Court judgment (mhc.tn.gov.in/judis footer): 'DATED: 09.11.2023, CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. SANJAY V. GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.D. AUDIKESAVALU, W.P.Nos.13203, 13593, 13720, 13722 and 14704 of 2023'; Supreme Court judgment (LiveLaw copy) confirms SLP (C) Nos. 1588-1592 of 2024 = CA Nos. 8275-8279 of 2026, Chandru committee constituted 10.06.2022, report 27.06.2022, Act enacted 07.04.2023, reversal 27.05.2026 (para 377)","url":"https://images.assettype.com/barandbench/2023-11/0fc1b25a-f95d-427b-a22f-8a78186d2a93/All_India_Gaming_Federation_vs_State.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"SLP (C) Nos. 1588-1592 of 2024, Civil Appeal Nos. 8275-8279 of 2026, Chandru committee dates, Act enacted 07.04.2023, reversal 27.05.2026","url":"https://www.scobserver.in/supreme-court-observer-law-reports-scolr/betting-and-gambling-in-games-of-skill-state-of-tamil-nadu-v-junglee-games-india/","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"open":[],"status_read_from_records":true,"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/licensing-administrative/all-india-gaming-federation-v-state-of-tamil-nadu-2023/"},{"id":"GL-IN-0024","slug":"pz-skill-games-v-state-of-maharashtra","title":"P Z Skill Games (OPC) Pvt Ltd v State of Maharashtra","short_name":"PZ Skill Games (Maharashtra online skill-gaming licence, 2024-2026)","aliases":["pz skill games maharashtra","maharashtra online gaming permission bombay high court"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"IN","state":"Maharashtra","court":"High Court of Bombay; Supreme Court of India (Civil Appeal No. 8240 of 2026 from SLP (C) No. 12201 of 2024)","level":"supreme"},"docket":"W.P. No. 13138 of 2023 (Bombay HC, disposed 04.01.2024); Civil Appeal No. 8240 of 2026","filed":"2023","category":"licensing-administrative","case_type":"operator-v-regulator","parties":{"plaintiffs":"P Z Skill Games (OPC) Pvt Ltd","defendants":["State of Maharashtra"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":""},"claims":["mandamus to decide an application for permission to launch an online skill-gaming platform in Maharashtra"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2026-05-27","money":{"fund":"","currency":"INR","attorney_fees":"","payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/2026/05/30/3079720237150571652judgement27-may-2026watermark-1778512.pdf"],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"A software developer applied to Maharashtra for permission to run an online skill-gaming platform; when the State did not decide, the Bombay High Court on 4 January 2024 told it to pursue remedies before the government. The appeal was tagged with the Gameskraft GST batch and disposed of on 27 May 2026. A small case, but it records that Maharashtra had no licensing route for online skill games and that the Bombay High Court in September 2024 was separately examining whether online rummy is skill or chance.","significance":"routine","related_cases":["GL-IN-0016"],"sources":[{"claim":"W.P. No. 13138 of 2023 disposed 04.01.2024; Civil Appeal No. 8240 of 2026 arising from SLP (C) No. 12201 of 2024; disposed with the batch","url":"https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/2026/05/30/3079720237150571652judgement27-may-2026watermark-1778512.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"Bombay High Court sought the State's response on whether online rummy is skill or chance (September 2024)","url":"https://www.barandbench.com/news/is-online-rummy-game-skill-chance-bombay-high-court-states-response","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"'the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 13138 of 2023 seeking a direction to grant a licence. By judgment dated 04.01.2024, the High Court of Bombay ...'; Civil Appeal No. 8240 of 2026 arising out of SLP (C) No. 12201 of 2024; para 86.3: appeal disposed of, pending application to be decided within twelve weeks","url":"https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2023/30797/30797_2023_7_1505_71652_Judgement_27-May-2026.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"open":[],"status_read_from_records":true,"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/licensing-administrative/pz-skill-games-v-state-of-maharashtra/"},{"id":"GL-IN-0009","slug":"junglee-games-v-state-of-tamil-nadu-madras-hc-2021","title":"Junglee Games India Pvt Ltd and others v State of Tamil Nadu and others","short_name":"Junglee Games (Madras HC strikes down 2021 Tamil Nadu online gaming ban)","aliases":["junglee games tamil nadu","tamil nadu gaming and police laws amendment act 2021 struck down","madras high court online rummy ban 2021"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"IN","state":"Tamil Nadu","court":"High Court of Judicature at Madras (Division Bench)","level":"appeal"},"docket":"W.P. Nos. 18022, 18029, 18044, 19374, 19380 of 2020; 7354, 7356, 13870 of 2021; 2021 SCC OnLine Mad 2762","filed":"2020","category":"licensing-administrative","case_type":"constitutional","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Junglee Games India Pvt Ltd, Head Digital Works, All India Gaming Federation and other online rummy and poker operators","defendants":["State of Tamil Nadu"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":""},"claims":["validity of Part II of the Tamil Nadu Gaming and Police Laws (Amendment) Act 2021 (new Section 3-A ban on wagering in cyberspace)","Article 19(1)(g)","legislative competence under Entry 34 List II"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2026-05-27","money":{"fund":"","currency":"INR","attorney_fees":"","payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://www.scobserver.in/supreme-court-observer-law-reports-scolr/betting-and-gambling-in-games-of-skill-state-of-tamil-nadu-v-junglee-games-india/"],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"On 3 August 2021 the Madras High Court struck down Part II of the 2021 Tamil Nadu amendment that criminalised wagering on rummy, poker or any game in cyberspace, holding that 'betting' in Entry 34 cannot be divorced from 'gambling' (games of chance) and that a blanket ban on skill games for stakes was disproportionate. Tamil Nadu's appeal (SLP (C) Nos. 19981-19987 of 2021, Civil Appeal Nos. 6124-6131 of 2023) was allowed by the Supreme Court on 27 May 2026, which set the judgment aside and declared Part II intra vires.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-IN-0011","GL-IN-0012","GL-IN-0013","GL-IN-0014"],"sources":[{"claim":"judgment date 03.08.2021, writ petition numbers, findings, appeal numbers and reversal on 27.05.2026","url":"https://www.scobserver.in/supreme-court-observer-law-reports-scolr/betting-and-gambling-in-games-of-skill-state-of-tamil-nadu-v-junglee-games-india/","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"Junglee Games recited by the Madras High Court in Play Games 24x7 v State of Tamil Nadu (03.06.2025)","url":"https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/play-games-24x7-v-state-of-tamil-nadu-602885.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"full text of the Supreme Court judgment of 27.05.2026 (LiveLaw copy): appeals arise from 'the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Madras dated 03.08.2021 in WP No. 18022 of 2020' etc.; SLP (C) Nos. 19981-19987 of 2021; para 377: appeals allowed, Madras and Karnataka judgments set aside, Part II of the 2021 TN Amendment Act declared intra vires; review by Junglee Games dismissed 15.10.2026 (api.sci.gov.in order)","url":"https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/2026/06/30/2026-livelaw-sc-591-state-of-tamil-nadu-v-junglee-games-india-pvt-ltd-27-may-2026-683112.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"open":[],"status_read_from_records":true,"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/licensing-administrative/junglee-games-v-state-of-tamil-nadu-madras-hc-2021/"},{"id":"GL-IN-0006","slug":"gurdeep-singh-sachar-v-union-of-india","title":"Gurdeep Singh Sachar v Union of India and others (Dream11 PIL); State of Maharashtra v Gurdeep Singh Sachar","short_name":"Gurdeep Singh Sachar (Dream11 PIL, Bombay HC 2019 to SC 2026)","aliases":["gurdeep singh sachar dream11","dream11 bombay high court gst","dream11 criminal pil"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"IN","state":"Maharashtra","court":"High Court of Bombay (Criminal PIL); Supreme Court of India (Criminal Appeal No. 2933 of 2026)","level":"supreme"},"docket":"Criminal PIL Stamp No. 22 of 2019 (Bombay HC, judgment 30.04.2019); SLP (Crl.) Diary No. 42282 of 2019 = SLP (Crl.) No. 2213 of 2020 (State of Maharashtra; notice and stay 06.03.2020); Criminal Appeal No. 2933 of 2026 (SC); SLP (Crl.) Diary No. 43346 of 2019 (Sachar) and SLP (Crl.) Diary No. 41632 of 2019 (Union) dismissed 13.12.2019; M.A. No. 502 of 2020 dismissed 31.01.2020","filed":"2019","category":"tax","case_type":"appeal","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Gurdeep Singh Sachar (PIL petitioner); State of Maharashtra and Union of India (appellants in the Supreme Court)","defendants":["Dream 11 Fantasy Private Limited"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"Supreme Court: J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan JJ (2026)"},"claims":["illegal gambling under the guise of fantasy sports","GST evasion under CGST Act 2017 and Rule 31A CGST Rules"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2026-05-27","money":{"fund":"","currency":"INR","attorney_fees":"","payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/2026/05/30/3079720237150571652judgement27-may-2026watermark-1778512.pdf"],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"On 30 April 2019 the Bombay High Court dismissed a criminal PIL alleging that Dream11 runs illegal betting and evades GST, holding fantasy sports a game of skill and the prize pool outside taxable supply. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitioner's and Union's SLPs on 4 October and 13 December 2019 but on 6 March 2020 issued notice and stayed the judgment on the State of Maharashtra's SLP because the Union and State had not been heard. On 27 May 2026 the Supreme Court allowed the criminal appeal to the extent the High Court had held the transactions outside taxable supply, as part of the 28% GST batch.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-IN-0005","GL-IN-0007","GL-IN-0016"],"sources":[{"claim":"Criminal PIL Stamp No. 22 of 2019; judgment 30.04.2019; SLPs dismissed 04.10.2019 and 13.12.2019; stay 06.03.2020; Criminal Appeal No. 2933 of 2026 allowed on the GST point 27.05.2026","url":"https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/2026/05/30/3079720237150571652judgement27-may-2026watermark-1778512.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"cause title: 'CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2933 OF 2026 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL) NO. 2213 OF 2020]'; paras (b)-(d) list the 2019 SLPs and dates; para 86.4 sets aside the Bombay judgment of 30.04.2019 to the extent it held the transactions outside taxable supply; official copy of 2026 INSC 595: Criminal PIL Stamp No. 22 of 2019, Bombay HC judgment 30.04.2019, stay 06.03.2020 in SLP (Crl.) Diary No. 42282 of 2019, Criminal Appeal No. 2933 of 2026 allowed 27.05.2026 to the extent of the GST holding (para 86.4)","url":"https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2023/30797/30797_2023_7_1505_71652_Judgement_27-May-2026.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"open":[],"status_read_from_records":true,"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/tax/gurdeep-singh-sachar-v-union-of-india/"},{"id":"GL-IT-0006","slug":"corte-costituzionale-27-2019-abruzzo-distanze","title":"Corte costituzionale, sentenza n. 27/2019 (Laura Accardo v Comune di Lanciano, art. 2 legge Regione Abruzzo 40/2013)","short_name":"Corte costituzionale 27/2019 (Abruzzo distance rule, barracks as sensitive places)","aliases":["sentenza 27/2019 corte costituzionale gioco abruzzo","distanziometro caserme corte costituzionale"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"IT","state":"Abruzzo","court":"Corte costituzionale","level":"supreme"},"docket":"Sentenza n. 27/2019 (ECLI:IT:COST:2019:27)","filed":"2017-04-21","category":"licensing-administrative","case_type":"constitutional","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Laura Accardo (gaming hall operator) in the main proceedings before TAR Abruzzo, Pescara","defendants":["Comune di Lanciano","Regione Abruzzo"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"President Giorgio Lattanzi, redattore Giuliano Amato"},"claims":["Arts. 3 and 117(2)(h) and (3) Constitution: inclusion of military barracks among sensitive places from which gaming halls must keep a distance"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2019-02-27","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://www.cortecostituzionale.it/actionSchedaPronuncia.do?anno=2019&numero=27","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://www.giurcost.org/decisioni/2019/0027s-19.html"],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"Decided 22 January 2019, deposited 27 February 2019, on a referral by TAR Abruzzo (Pescara) of 21 April 2017. The questions were held unfounded: including barracks among sensitive places is not extraneous to the aim of preventing gambling addiction, confirming judgment 108/2017.","significance":"routine","related_cases":["GL-IT-0005"],"sources":[{"claim":"judgment 27/2019 decided 22 January 2019, deposited 27 February 2019, TAR Pescara order 21 April 2017, dispositivo; SECONDARY MIRROR: sentenza 27/2019, udienza 22 January 2019, deposited 27 February 2019, Lattanzi/Amato, reg. ord. 161/2017, TAR Abruzzo Pescara ordinanza 21 April 2017, Laura Accardo v Comune di Lanciano, art. 2 c.1 lett. c) punto IV L.R. Abruzzo 40/2013, 'non fondate'","url":"https://www.giurcost.org/decisioni/2019/0027s-19.html","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/licensing-administrative/corte-costituzionale-27-2019-abruzzo-distanze/"},{"id":"GL-IT-0009","slug":"corte-costituzionale-27-2018-imposta-unica-ctd","title":"Corte costituzionale, sentenza n. 27/2018 (imposta unica sulle scommesse, centri di trasmissione dati operating for bookmakers without concession)","short_name":"Corte costituzionale 27/2018 (betting tax on CTDs before 2011)","aliases":["sentenza 27/2018 imposta unica","ctd stanley imposta unica corte costituzionale","imposta unica scommesse ricevitorie 2011"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"IT","state":"","court":"Corte costituzionale","level":"supreme"},"docket":"Sentenza n. 27/2018 (ECLI:IT:COST:2018:27)","filed":"2015-12-17","category":"tax","case_type":"constitutional","parties":{"plaintiffs":"CTD operators linked to Stanleybet (main proceedings before the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Rieti)","defendants":["Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"President Giorgio Lattanzi, redattore Giuliano Amato"},"claims":["Arts. 3 and 53 Constitution: art. 3 D.Lgs. 504/1998 and art. 1(66)(b) Law 220/2010 making ricevitorie operating for unlicensed bookmakers liable for the single tax on bets"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2018-02-14","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://www.cortecostituzionale.it/actionSchedaPronuncia.do?anno=2018&numero=27","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://www.giurcost.org/decisioni/2018/0027s-18.html"],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"On four referrals by the CTP Rieti the Court (decision 23 January 2018, deposited 14 February 2018) declared art. 3 D.Lgs. 504/1998 and art. 1(66)(b) Law 220/2010 unconstitutional in so far as, for tax years before 2011, they subjected ricevitorie operating for bookmakers without concession to the single tax, because those shops could not pass the tax on; for years from 2011 the rules are legitimate. The Cassazione later held that the pre-2011 exemption covers only the CTD, not the foreign bookmaker (ord. 11827/2022).","significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-EU-0309","GL-IT-0022"],"sources":[{"claim":"judgment 27/2018, deposited 14 February 2018, dispositivo (points 1-3); Sentenza 27/2018 (udienza 23 January 2018, deposited 14 February 2018), Presidente Lattanzi, Redattore Amato; cortecostituzionale.it blocked by bot protection, Consulta OnLine mirror used; four ordinanze of the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Rieti dated 17 December 2015 (reg. ord. nn. 60, 61, 62, 63 del 2016); parties M.C. G. and Stanleybet Malta ltd v Agenzia delle dogane e dei monopoli; SECONDARY MIRROR: sentenza 27/2018 deposited 14 February 2018; art. 3 d.lgs. 504/1998 and art. 1 c.66 lett. b) legge 220/2010 unc","url":"https://www.giurcost.org/decisioni/2018/0027s-18.html","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"Cassazione ord. 11827/2022: unconstitutionality covers only the ricevitorie, foreign bookmaker remains liable for 2010","url":"https://www.lexced.com/?p=889869","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"}],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/tax/corte-costituzionale-27-2018-imposta-unica-ctd/"},{"id":"GL-IT-0005","slug":"corte-costituzionale-108-2017-puglia-distanze-sale-gioco","title":"Corte costituzionale, sentenza n. 108/2017 (Gilupi srl v Comune di Melendugno, art. 7 legge Regione Puglia 43/2013)","short_name":"Corte costituzionale 108/2017 (regional distance rules for gaming halls)","aliases":["distanziometro corte costituzionale 2017","sentenza 108/2017 puglia slot distanze"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"IT","state":"Puglia","court":"Corte costituzionale","level":"supreme"},"docket":"Sentenza n. 108/2017 (ECLI:IT:COST:2017:108)","filed":"2015-07-22","category":"licensing-administrative","case_type":"constitutional","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Gilupi srl and another (gaming hall operators) in the main proceedings before TAR Puglia, Lecce","defendants":["Comune di Melendugno","Regione Puglia"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"President Giorgio Lattanzi, redattore Franco Modugno"},"claims":["Art. 117(2)(h) and (3) Constitution: whether a regional law banning gaming halls and machines within a minimum distance of sensitive places invades the State's exclusive competence on public order"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2017-05-11","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://www.cortecostituzionale.it/actionSchedaPronuncia.do?anno=2017&numero=108","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://www.giurcost.org/decisioni/2017/0108s-17.html"],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"Decided 22 March 2017, deposited 11 May 2017, on a referral by TAR Puglia (Lecce) of 22 July 2015. The Court held the questions unfounded: regions may fix minimum distances between gaming halls and sensitive places (schools, churches, hospitals) as a public-health measure against pathological gambling, following the line opened by judgment 300/2011 on the Bolzano law. It is the constitutional basis of the Italian 'distanziometri' that closed thousands of slot locations.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-IT-0006","GL-IT-0007"],"sources":[{"claim":"judgment 108/2017 decided 22 March 2017, deposited 11 May 2017, TAR Lecce order 22 July 2015, dispositivo; SECONDARY MIRROR: sentenza 108/2017, udienza 22 March 2017, deposited 11 May 2017, Lattanzi/Modugno, reg. ord. 54/2016, TAR Puglia Lecce ordinanza 22 July 2015, Gilupi srl ed altra v Comune di Melendugno, art. 7 L.R. Puglia 43/2013 (500 m distance), 'non fondate'","url":"https://www.giurcost.org/decisioni/2017/0108s-17.html","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/licensing-administrative/corte-costituzionale-108-2017-puglia-distanze-sale-gioco/"},{"id":"GL-IT-0004","slug":"corte-costituzionale-56-2015-concession-requirements","title":"Corte costituzionale, sentenza n. 56/2015 (B Plus Giocolegale Ltd v Amministrazione autonoma dei monopoli di Stato, art. 1 commi 77-79 legge 220/2010)","short_name":"Corte costituzionale 56/2015 (new conditions on existing concessionaires)","aliases":["sentenza 56/2015 corte costituzionale giochi","legge di stabilità 2011 concessioni gioco online costituzionale"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"IT","state":"","court":"Corte costituzionale","level":"supreme"},"docket":"Sentenza n. 56/2015 (ECLI:IT:COST:2015:56)","filed":"2013-09-23","category":"licensing-administrative","case_type":"constitutional","parties":{"plaintiffs":"B Plus Giocolegale Ltd (party to the main proceedings before the Consiglio di Stato)","defendants":["Amministrazione autonoma dei monopoli di Stato"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"President Alessandro Criscuolo, redattore Daria de Pretis"},"claims":["Arts. 3, 41(1) and 42(3) Constitution: whether art. 1(79) Law 220/2010, with commi 77-78, may impose new requirements on existing online gaming concessionaires through an addendum"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2015-03-31","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://www.cortecostituzionale.it/actionSchedaPronuncia.do?anno=2015&numero=56","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://www.giurcost.org/decisioni/2015/0056s-15.html"],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"Referred by the Consiglio di Stato (order of 23 September 2013) in Bplus's challenge to the 2011 Stability Law. Decided 10 March 2015, deposited 31 March 2015: the question is unfounded, the legislature may rebalance existing gaming concessions in the public interest without violating equality, economic freedom or property. The Consiglio di Stato then referred the EU-law side to Luxembourg (C-322/16).","significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-EU-0307","GL-IT-0001"],"sources":[{"claim":"judgment 56/2015 decided 10 March 2015, deposited 31 March 2015, referral by Consiglio di Stato order 23 September 2013, dispositivo; SECONDARY MIRROR (Consulta OnLine; cortecostituzionale.it blocked): sentenza 56/2015, udienza 10 March 2015, deposited 31 March 2015, Criscuolo/de Pretis, reg. ord. 280/2013 from Consiglio di Stato ordinanza 23 September 2013, B Plus Giocolegale ltd v AAMS, art. 1 commi 77-79 legge 220/2010, 'dichiara non fondata'","url":"https://www.giurcost.org/decisioni/2015/0056s-15.html","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/licensing-administrative/corte-costituzionale-56-2015-concession-requirements/"},{"id":"GL-IT-0007","slug":"corte-costituzionale-300-2011-bolzano-gioco-lecito","title":"Corte costituzionale, sentenza n. 300/2011 (Presidente del Consiglio dei ministri v Provincia autonoma di Bolzano, legge provinciale 13/2010 on legal gaming)","short_name":"Corte costituzionale 300/2011 (Bolzano gaming law)","aliases":["sentenza 300/2011 gioco lecito bolzano","corte costituzionale 2011 sale gioco distanze"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"IT","state":"Trentino-Alto Adige","court":"Corte costituzionale","level":"supreme"},"docket":"Sentenza n. 300/2011","filed":"2011-02-01","category":"licensing-administrative","case_type":"constitutional","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Presidente del Consiglio dei ministri","defendants":["Provincia autonoma di Bolzano"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"President Alfonso Quaranta, redattore Giuseppe Frigo"},"claims":["Art. 117(2)(h) Constitution: direct challenge by the Government to arts. 1 and 2(2) of provincial law 13/2010 restricting the location of gaming halls"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2011-11-10","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://www.cortecostituzionale.it/actionSchedaPronuncia.do?anno=2011&numero=300","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://www.giurcost.org/decisioni/2011/0300s-11.html"],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"Decided 9 November 2011, deposited 10 November 2011. The Government's challenge was held unfounded: provincial (and by extension regional) rules on the location of gaming halls pursue health and social protection and do not invade the State's public-order competence. It reversed the earlier approach of judgment 185/2004 on regional casinos and opened the way to the distance rules upheld in 108/2017 and 27/2019.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-IT-0005","GL-IT-0008"],"sources":[{"claim":"judgment 300/2011 decided 9 November 2011, deposited 10 November 2011, dispositivo; SECONDARY MIRROR: sentenza 300/2011, udienza 20 September 2011, deliberated 9 November and deposited 10 November 2011, Quaranta/Frigo, ricorso n. 4/2011 deposited 1 February 2011, Presidente del Consiglio v Provincia autonoma di Bolzano, artt. 1 and 2 c.2 L.P. 13/2010, 'non fondata'","url":"https://www.giurcost.org/decisioni/2011/0300s-11.html","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/licensing-administrative/corte-costituzionale-300-2011-bolzano-gioco-lecito/"},{"id":"GL-IT-0008","slug":"corte-costituzionale-185-2004-friuli-case-da-gioco","title":"Corte costituzionale, sentenza n. 185/2004 (Presidente del Consiglio dei ministri v Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia, legge regionale 17/2002 on casinos)","short_name":"Corte costituzionale 185/2004 (regional casino law struck down)","aliases":["sentenza 185/2004 case da gioco friuli","casinò regionali incostituzionale"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"IT","state":"Friuli-Venezia Giulia","court":"Corte costituzionale","level":"supreme"},"docket":"Sentenza n. 185/2004","filed":"2002-09-23","category":"licensing-administrative","case_type":"constitutional","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Presidente del Consiglio dei ministri","defendants":["Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"President Gustavo Zagrebelsky, redattore Carlo Mezzanotte"},"claims":["Whether a region may authorise casinos (case da gioco) on its territory"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2004-06-24","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://www.cortecostituzionale.it/actionSchedaPronuncia.do?anno=2004&numero=185","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://www.giurcost.org/decisioni/2004/0185s-04.html"],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"Decided 21 June 2004, deposited 24 June 2004. The Court declared the whole regional law establishing casinos in Friuli-Venezia Giulia unconstitutional: gambling is a matter of public order reserved to the State, and only the four historic casinos (Venice, Sanremo, Campione, Saint-Vincent) rest on special state laws. Still the reason Italy has no new land-based casinos.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-IT-0007"],"sources":[{"claim":"judgment 185/2004 decided 21 June 2004, deposited 24 June 2004, dispositivo; SECONDARY MIRROR: sentenza 185/2004, udienza 23 March 2004, deliberated 21 June and deposited 24 June 2004, Zagrebelsky/Mezzanotte, ricorso n. 59/2002 deposited 23 September 2002, whole L.R. Friuli-Venezia Giulia 17/2002 (case da gioco) declared unconstitutional","url":"https://www.giurcost.org/decisioni/2004/0185s-04.html","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/licensing-administrative/corte-costituzionale-185-2004-friuli-case-da-gioco/"},{"id":"GL-MO-0003","slug":"tui-55-2022-junket-deposit-law-16-2022-interpretive-norm-2025","title":"A v B (concessionaire) and C (gaming promoter), Tribunal de Última Instância, Processo 55/2022","short_name":"HKD 25m junket deposit: concessionaire not liable after Law 16/2022 (TUI 55/2022)","aliases":["tui 55/2022","law 16/2022 article 63 junket deposits","macau casino not liable junket deposit 2025"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"MO","state":"","court":"Tribunal de Última Instância of the Macau SAR","level":"supreme"},"docket":"Processo 55/2022 (TJB CV1-19-0003-CAO; TSI 563/2021)","filed":"2019","category":"refund-claims","case_type":"individual","parties":{"plaintiffs":"depositor 'A'","defendants":["concessionaire 'B'","gaming promoter 'C'"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"José Maria Dias Azedo (relator), Song Man Lei, Choi Mou Pan"},"claims":["HKD 25,000,000 (MOP 25,750,000) deposit with interest from 13 October 2015; solidary liability of the concessionaire under art. 29 RA 6/2002 as interpreted by art. 63 of Law 16/2022"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2025-10-10","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"HKD","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":"HKD 25,000,000 against the promoter only (first instance 2 February 2021, confirmed); claim against the concessionaire dismissed"},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://www.court.gov.mo/sentence/pt-e57376b0e79fe882.pdf","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://www.court.gov.mo/sentence/pt-d27cb3b063c762b5.pdf"],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"A depositor who lost HKD 25 million in a VIP room in 2015 obtained judgment against the junket but not the casino (TJB 2 February 2021; TSI 4 November 2021). On 10 October 2025 the Court of Final Appeal dismissed the appeal: the 'interpretive norm' in art. 63 of the 2022 junket law (Law 16/2022) means the concessionaire is solidarily liable only where the funds or chips deposited with the promoter were used or won in casino games, which was not proven. Proc. 125/2022 (31 October 2025, HKD 15.5m across three depositors) applied the same rule. These judgments mark the retreat from the 2021-2022 line and the end of the Suncity/Dore deposit litigation wave.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-MO-0001","GL-MO-0002"],"sources":[{"claim":"TUI Proc. 55/2022, 10 October 2025, HKD 25m, art. 63 Law 16/2022, appeal dismissed; Proc. 55/2022, 10 October 2025, Dias Azedo (relator), Song Man Lei, Choi Mou Pan: HKD 25,000,000 (MOP 25,750,000) with interest from 13.10.2015 against the promoter only (TJB CV1-19-0003-CAO 02.02.2021; TSI 563/2021 04.11.2021); appeal dismissed under art. 63 Law 16/2022, 15 UC costs; Proc. 125/2022 (31 October 2025, Dias Azedo, Ho Wai Neng, Song Man Lei; CV3-19-0056-CAO 15.06.2021; TSI 192/2022 09.06.2022; HKD 3m/10.5m/2m) applies the same rule","url":"https://www.court.gov.mo/sentence/pt-e57376b0e79fe882.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"TUI Proc. 125/2022, 31 October 2025, HKD 3m/10.5m/2m deposits of September 2015, appeal dismissed","url":"https://www.court.gov.mo/sentence/pt-d27cb3b063c762b5.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/refund-claims/tui-55-2022-junket-deposit-law-16-2022-interpretive-norm-2025/"},{"id":"GL-MO-0002","slug":"tui-205-2020-junket-deposit-concessionaire-liability-2022","title":"A v B (gaming promoter) and C (concessionaire), Tribunal de Última Instância, Processos 205/2020, 34/2020, 46/2020 and 185/2020","short_name":"Court of Final Appeal junket-deposit rulings of 28 January 2022","aliases":["macau top court junket deposits january 2022","tui 205/2020","casino operators liable vip room deposits macau"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"MO","state":"","court":"Tribunal de Última Instância of the Macau SAR","level":"supreme"},"docket":"Processos 205/2020 (TJB CV1-17-0103-CAO, TSI 168/2020), 34/2020 (CV1-17-0034-CAO, TSI 749/2019), 46/2020 (CV3-17-0028-CAO, TSI 790/2019), 185/2020 (CV1-17-0030-CAO, TSI 78/2020)","filed":"2017","category":"refund-claims","case_type":"individual","parties":{"plaintiffs":"VIP-room depositors (anonymised)","defendants":["gaming promoter (junket) 'B'","casino concessionaire or sub-concessionaire 'C' (names anonymised in the published judgments; press identifies Dore/Wynn and Suncity-linked rooms)"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"Song Man Lei (relatora), José Maria Dias Azedo, Sam Hou Fai"},"claims":["return of deposits evidenced by junket deposit slips (HKD 2,500,000; MOP 6,180,000; MOP 1,030,000; MOP 1,030,000) with legal interest","concessionaire's solidary liability under art. 29 Administrative Regulation 6/2002 regardless of art. 30(5)"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2022-01-28","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"HKD","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":"HKD 2.5m (205/2020), MOP 6.18m (34/2020), MOP 1.03m (46/2020), MOP 1.03m (185/2020) with legal interest; concessionaires jointly liable"},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://www.court.gov.mo/sentence/pt-3edcf683da9d7f78.pdf","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://www.court.gov.mo/sentence/pt-b2d3926cfe3ad424.pdf","https://www.court.gov.mo/sentence/pt-83cf3d085d35cc3e.pdf","https://www.court.gov.mo/sentence/pt-c3990f1d42a1c941.pdf"],"regulator":"","press":["https://www.macaubusiness.com/wynn-and-mgm-jointly-liable-in-lost-vip-room-deposits-cases-involving-suncity-and-dore-top-court/"]},"summary":"On 28 January 2022 the Court of Final Appeal dismissed four pairs of appeals by junkets and their host concessionaires against orders to repay VIP-room deposits taken in 2015, expressly following Proc. 45/2019 and its own decisions of 12 and 19 January 2022 (Procs. 50/2020, 76/2020, 121/2020). The judgments settle that proof of a deposit slip suffices and that the concessionaire answers solidarily under art. 29 of Administrative Regulation 6/2002. Press reporting in May 2022 counted nine such final rulings against Wynn Macau and MGM China, with MGM estimating exposure of HKD 202.7 million.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-MO-0001","GL-MO-0003","GL-MO-0004"],"sources":[{"claim":"TUI Proc. 205/2020, 28 January 2022, HKD 2.5m deposit of 19 August 2015, appeals dismissed, follows 45/2019; Procs. 205/2020 (CV1-17-0103-CAO, TSI 168/2020, HKD 2,500,000, deposit slip 19 August 2015), 34/2020 (CV1-17-0034-CAO, TSI 749/2019, MOP 6,180,000 awarded of MOP 6,189,000 claimed), 46/2020 (CV3-17-0028-CAO, TSI 790/2019, MOP 1,030,000, TSI added the concessionaire), 185/2020 (CV1-17-0030-CAO, TSI 78/2020, HKD 1,000,000 = MOP 1,030,000, slip 1 May 2015); all 28 January 2022, Song Man Lei relatora, Dias Azedo, Sam Hou Fai; appeals dismissed, art. 29 RA 6/2002 solidary liability following","url":"https://www.court.gov.mo/sentence/pt-3edcf683da9d7f78.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"TUI Proc. 34/2020, 28 January 2022, MOP 6.18m","url":"https://www.court.gov.mo/sentence/pt-b2d3926cfe3ad424.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"TUI Proc. 46/2020, 28 January 2022, MOP 1.03m, TSI 790/2019 had added the concessionaire","url":"https://www.court.gov.mo/sentence/pt-83cf3d085d35cc3e.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"TUI Proc. 185/2020, 28 January 2022, HKD 1m deposit slip of 1 May 2015","url":"https://www.court.gov.mo/sentence/pt-c3990f1d42a1c941.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"MGM China 2021 annual results (HKEX, 10 March 2022): provision of HK$202.7 million at 31 December 2021 for joint liability with gaming promoters in three Macau proceedings by depositors of two promoters at MGM MACAU under art. 29 of Administrative Regulation 6/2002; recovery from the promoters considered remote","url":"https://www1.hkexnews.hk/listedco/listconews/sehk/2022/0310/2022031001220.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/refund-claims/tui-205-2020-junket-deposit-concessionaire-liability-2022/"},{"id":"GL-MT-0014","slug":"btm-entertainment-group-liquidation-player-funds-malta","title":"In re BTM Entertainment Group Limited – MGA cancellation of MGA/B2C/350/2016 (22 March 2024); liquidation before the Civil Court First Hall (Commercial Section); player funds transferred to the MGA, claims invited (update 1 April 2026)","short_name":"BTM Entertainment player funds claims","aliases":["btm entertainment group player funds","btm entertainment mga claim form","how to claim player balance btm malta"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"MT","state":"","court":"Civil Court, First Hall (Commercial Section), Malta","level":"first-instance"},"docket":"MGA/B2C/350/2016 (authorisation)","filed":"2024","category":"licensing-administrative","case_type":"regulator-v-operator","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Malta Gaming Authority (cancellation of 22 March 2024 and player-funds claims process); applicant and liquidator in the Civil Court liquidation not published","defendants":["BTM Entertainment Group Limited (C-73982)"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":""},"claims":["cancellation under reg. 10(1)(a) and regs. 9(1)(c), (d), (f), (l), (m) of the Gaming Compliance and Enforcement Regulations (S.L. 583.06)","liquidation before the Civil Court, First Hall (Commercial Section); player fund balances transferred to the Authority, claims invited by email with supporting evidence (update of 1 April 2026)"],"status":"claims-open","status_date":"2026-04-01","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":"player fund balances transferred to the MGA (total not published)"},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"","administrator":"","claim_form":"https://www.mga.org.mt/?p=6073","orders":[],"regulator":"https://www.mga.org.mt/?p=6073","press":[]},"summary":"The MGA cancelled BTM's B2C licence on 22 March 2024 citing, among other grounds, the licensee's bankruptcy. In liquidation proceedings before the First Hall (Commercial Section) all outstanding player balances were transferred to the Authority, and on 1 April 2026 the MGA invited players to submit formal claims with evidence by email. The only Maltese case with an open, regulator-run claims process for players of a failed online operator.","significance":"routine","related_cases":["GL-MT-0013"],"sources":[{"claim":"cancellation 22 March 2024; player funds transferred to the Authority under liquidation before the First Hall Civil Court (Commercial Section); claims by email (update 1 April 2026)","url":"https://www.mga.org.mt/?p=6073","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":["liquidation case number, liquidator and total player funds not published","no claim deadline published"],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/licensing-administrative/btm-entertainment-group-liquidation-player-funds-malta/"},{"aliases":["hoge raad online gokken nietig","hoge raad 3 juli 2026 kansspelovereenkomst","dutch supreme court gambling refunds ruling","pokerstars bwin hoge raad"],"docket":"25/00202; 25/00204","filed":"2025-01-22","claims":["art. 3:40 BW nietigheid","Wet op de kansspelen art. 1(1)(a)"],"status_date":"2026-07-03","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Dutch players seeking repayment of losses incurred before 1 October 2021 (referring courts: Rechtbank Amsterdam and Rechtbank Noord-Holland)","defendants":["TSG Interactive Gaming Europe Limited (PokerStars, Malta)","Electraworks Europe Limited (bwin/partycasino, Malta)"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":""},"money":{"fund":0,"currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://deeplink.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraak?id=ECLI:NL:HR:2026:1159","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://data.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraken/content?id=ECLI:NL:HR:2026:1159","https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:HR:2026:1159"],"regulator":"","press":["https://www.hogeraad.nl/actueel/nieuwsoverzicht/2026/juli/hoge-raad-vergunning-exploiteren-online-kansspelen-leidt-nietigheid/","https://www.blenheim.nl/en/blog/gambling-contracts-with-illegal-online-operators-are-valid-says-dutch-supreme-court/","https://www.mamotcv.com/insights/dutch-supreme-court-closes-one-door-on-gambling-player-claims-whats-next-for-malta-based-operators/"]},"significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-NL-0002","GL-NL-0003","GL-NL-0005","GL-NL-0006"],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"id":"GL-NL-0001","slug":"hoge-raad-online-gambling-contracts-not-void-2026","title":"Hoge Raad 3 juli 2026, ECLI:NL:HR:2026:1159 (prejudiciële vragen, zaken 25/00202 en 25/00204, PokerStars en bwin)","short_name":"Dutch Supreme Court: pre-2021 online gambling contracts are not void","jurisdiction":{"country":"NL","state":"","court":"Hoge Raad der Nederlanden","level":"supreme"},"category":"refund-claims","case_type":"individual","status":"judgment","summary":"After contradictory first-instance rulings (Overijssel and Noord-Nederland: void, repay; Zeeland-West-Brabant: tolerated, no repayment), the Rechtbank Amsterdam (C/13/747113 / HA ZA 24-205, player v TSG Interactive Gaming Europe Ltd, claim USD 139,464.58) and the Rechtbank Noord-Holland (C/15/343871 / HA ZA 23-498, player v Electraworks Europe Ltd, claim EUR 135,137) referred preliminary questions under art. 392 Rv by interim judgments of 22 January 2025 (ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2025:369, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2025:485). The Hoge Raad (civil chamber, cases 25/00202 and 25/00204; vice-president Kroeze, judges du Perron, Wattendorff, ter Heide and Salomons) answered on 3 July 2026 (operative part: answers in paras 3.3.2, 3.4.2, 3.5.3, 3.6.2 and 3.7.3): the Wok never had the purpose of affecting the validity of contracts concluded with an operator acting in breach of art. 1(1)(a) Wok (3.3.2), so question 2 (loss of that purpose) needs no answer (3.4.2); such contracts are not void or voidable under art. 3:40 BW and the KSA prioritisation criteria make no difference (3.5.3), \"dit laat onverlet\" that they may be voidable for a defect of consent (wilsgebrek) or give rise to a claim in tort (onrechtmatige daad) (3.5.2 end); question 5 on restitution for undue payment therefore needs no answer (3.6.2); the fact that an operator only lets players play against each other is irrelevant (3.7.3). The judgment does not rule on EU law. Repayment claims based on nullity and onverschuldigde betaling for pre-October 2021 losses therefore fail; what remains are fact-specific tort and defect-of-consent claims, to be decided by the referring courts.","sources":[{"claim":"date 3 July 2026, ECLI:NL:HR:2026:1159, holding on art. 3:40 BW, AG opinion 28 Nov 2025, referring courts","url":"https://www.blenheim.nl/en/blog/gambling-contracts-with-illegal-online-operators-are-valid-says-dutch-supreme-court/","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"case numbers 25/00202 and 25/00204, parties, remaining tort route","url":"https://www.mamotcv.com/insights/dutch-supreme-court-closes-one-door-on-gambling-player-claims-whats-next-for-malta-based-operators/","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"judgment on rechtspraak.nl","url":"https://deeplink.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraak?id=ECLI:NL:HR:2026:1159","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"judgment text: 3 July 2026, cases 25/00202 and 25/00204, referring judgments 22 Jan 2025 (ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2025:369, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2025:485), claims USD 139,464.58 and EUR 135,137, r.o. 3.2.7 operative holding, tort and wilsgebrek reserved, answers 3.3.2-3.7.3","url":"https://data.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraken/content?id=ECLI:NL:HR:2026:1159","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"judgment 3 July 2026, zaaknummers 25/00202 and 25/00204, referring judgments ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2025:369 and ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2025:485 of 22 Jan 2025, operative part (3.3.2, 3.4.2, 3.5.3, 3.6.2, 3.7.3), tort and wilsgebrek route preserved, no EU-law ruling","url":"https://data.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraken/content?id=ECLI:NL:HR:2026:1159","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"AG opinion 28 Nov 2025 in 25/00202","url":"https://data.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraken/content?id=ECLI:NL:PHR:2025:1302","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/refund-claims/hoge-raad-online-gambling-contracts-not-void-2026/"},{"aliases":["hotel gaming nuland zorgplicht","rechtbank oost-brabant casino zorgplicht 2023"],"docket":"C/01/330362 / HA ZA 18-88","filed":"2018","claims":["zorgplicht","onrechtmatige daad","art. 6:97 BW damages estimate"],"status_date":"2023-01-18","parties":{"plaintiffs":"visitor with gambling addiction and cocaine use on the premises","defendants":["Hotel Gaming B.V. (Nuland)"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":""},"money":{"fund":0,"currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":"declaration of unlawful conduct; EUR 5,000 damages ex aequo et bono (claimed EUR 90,000, later at least EUR 379,000) plus EUR 3,670.48 costs"},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://omgevingsweb.nl/jurisprudentie/eclinlrbobr2023214/","https://data.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraken/content?id=ECLI:NL:RBOBR:2023:214"],"regulator":"","press":[]},"significance":"routine","related_cases":[],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"id":"GL-NL-0022","slug":"hotel-gaming-nuland-duty-of-care-2023","title":"Eiser tegen Hotel Gaming B.V., Rechtbank Oost-Brabant 18 januari 2023, ECLI:NL:RBOBR:2023:214","short_name":"Land-based casino liable for duty-of-care breach, EUR 5,000","jurisdiction":{"country":"NL","state":"","court":"Rechtbank Oost-Brabant","level":"first-instance"},"category":"addiction-duty-of-care","case_type":"individual","status":"judgment","summary":"The casino knew of the visitor's cocaine use but imposed no involuntary ban; the court held this unlawful but awarded only EUR 5,000 because losses were not documented.","sources":[{"claim":"judgment 18 Jan 2023, case number, amounts","url":"https://omgevingsweb.nl/jurisprudentie/eclinlrbobr2023214/","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"Rechtbank Oost-Brabant 18 Jan 2023, C/01/330362 / HA ZA 18-88","url":"https://data.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraken/content?id=ECLI:NL:RBOBR:2023:214","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"Rechtbank Oost-Brabant 18 Jan 2023: onrechtmatig handelen, EUR 5,000 plus interest from 10 Oct 2016, costs EUR 3,670.48","url":"https://data.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraken/content?id=ECLI:NL:RBOBR:2023:214","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/addiction-duty-of-care/hotel-gaming-nuland-duty-of-care-2023/"},{"aliases":["ladbrokes de lotto hoge raad 2012","ladbrokes nederland verbod internet wedden"],"docket":"ECLI:NL:HR:2012:BT6689 (07/00035)","filed":"2003","claims":["Wok art. 1 (offering games of chance without licence)","art. 49 EC"],"status_date":"2012-02-24","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Stichting de Nationale Sporttotalisator (De Lotto)","defendants":["Ladbrokes Betting & Gaming Ltd","Ladbrokes International Ltd"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":""},"money":{"fund":0,"currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://data.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraken/content?id=ECLI:NL:HR:2012:BT6689"],"regulator":"","press":[]},"significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-EU-0206"],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"id":"GL-NL-0026","slug":"de-lotto-v-ladbrokes-hoge-raad-2012","title":"Stichting de Nationale Sporttotalisator (De Lotto) tegen Ladbrokes, Hoge Raad 24 februari 2012 (na HvJ C-258/08)","short_name":"De Lotto v Ladbrokes: Dutch ban on foreign online betting upheld","jurisdiction":{"country":"NL","state":"","court":"Hoge Raad der Nederlanden","level":"supreme"},"category":"licensing-administrative","case_type":"individual","status":"judgment","summary":"De Lotto obtained injunctions ordering Ladbrokes to block Dutch residents from its betting site. The Hoge Raad referred questions; the CJEU ruled on 3 June 2010 (C-258/08) that a Member State may require foreign online operators to block access even if licensed elsewhere, provided the policy is consistent. On 24 February 2012 the Hoge Raad rejected Ladbrokes' cassation appeal on all points.","sources":[{"claim":"Hoge Raad 24 Feb 2012 final ruling, Ladbrokes appeal rejected (government letter)","url":"https://www.officielebekendmakingen.nl/kst-32264-25.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"CJEU C-258/08 judgment 3 June 2010","url":"https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/P_64502/en","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"Hoge Raad 24 Feb 2012, zaaknummer 07/00035","url":"https://data.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraken/content?id=ECLI:NL:HR:2012:BT6689","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/licensing-administrative/de-lotto-v-ladbrokes-hoge-raad-2012/"},{"aliases":["rechtbank breda bwin gedoogbeleid","online gokker vangt bot bij rechter"],"docket":"ECLI:NL:RBZWB:2024:3524 (C/02/413925 / HA ZA 23-482)","filed":"","claims":["art. 3:40 BW"],"status_date":"2024-05-29","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Dutch player (account opened 2015), counsel Loonstein","defendants":["bwin (Electraworks Europe Limited)"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":""},"money":{"fund":0,"currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":"claim for EUR 94,479.65 dismissed; player ordered to pay EUR 5,443 costs (29 May 2024)"},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://data.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraken/content?id=ECLI:NL:RBZWB:2024:3524"],"regulator":"","press":["https://nos.nl/l/2522403"]},"significance":"routine","related_cases":["GL-NL-0001","GL-NL-0002"],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"id":"GL-NL-0005","slug":"rechtbank-zeeland-west-brabant-bwin-claim-dismissed-2024","title":"Speler tegen bwin (Electraworks), Rechtbank Zeeland-West-Brabant (Breda) 2024, vordering afgewezen","short_name":"Breda court: bwin player loses, tolerance policy","jurisdiction":{"country":"NL","state":"","court":"Rechtbank Zeeland-West-Brabant","level":"first-instance"},"category":"refund-claims","case_type":"individual","status":"dismissed","summary":"The court accepted that bwin acted illegally but found a de facto tolerance policy: the KSA had issued prioritisation criteria in 2012 and told bwin its site met them, and the player bore responsibility for his own choices. The ruling split the lower courts and triggered the referral to the Hoge Raad.","sources":[{"claim":"ruling reported 29 May 2024, EUR 94,479.65, reasoning","url":"https://nos.nl/l/2522403","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"vorderingen afgewezen, costs EUR 5,443, 29 May 2024, bwin.com","url":"https://data.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraken/content?id=ECLI:NL:RBZWB:2024:3524","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/refund-claims/rechtbank-zeeland-west-brabant-bwin-claim-dismissed-2024/"},{"aliases":["polymarket kansspelautoriteit","polymarket netherlands ban court","polymarket dwangsom 420.000","polymarket ksa lawsuit"],"docket":"KSA last onder dwangsom 20 Jan 2026, kenmerk 22310/01.370.802; kennisgeving verbeuring 19 Feb 2026; invorderingsbesluit 19 May 2026, kenmerk 22310/01.388.977; beslissing op bezwaar 23 June 2026, kenmerk 24971/01.399.205","filed":"","claims":["Wok art. 1(1)(a) unlicensed games of chance (event contracts as bets)","Polymarket: event contracts are financial instruments for the AFM, not gambling"],"status_date":"2026-06-23","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Adventure One QSS Inc. (Polymarket)","defendants":["Kansspelautoriteit"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":""},"money":{"fund":0,"currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":"last onder dwangsom of 20 January 2026 (kenmerk 22310/01.370.802): stop within four weeks (term ended 17 February 2026), thereafter EUR 420,000 per week or part of a week up to a maximum of EUR 840,000; re-check 18 February 2026 found the offer continuing; notice of forfeiture 19 February 2026; invorderingsbesluit 19 May 2026 (kenmerk 22310/01.388.977) collects EUR 420,000; beslissing op bezwaar 23 June 2026 (kenmerk 24971/01.399.205): objection against the forfeiture notice inadmissible, objections against the order and its publication unfounded, decisions maintained, costs refused"},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://kansspelautoriteit.nl/sites/default/files/2026-06/2026-05-19_22310_invorderingsbesluit_Adventure%20One%20QSS%20Inc._sanctiebesluit.pdf","https://kansspelautoriteit.nl/sites/default/files/2026-07/2026-06-23_24971_beslissing%20op%20bezwaar%20Adventure%20One%20QSS%20Inc._sanctiebesluit.pdf","https://kansspelautoriteit.nl/adventure-one-qss-inc-polymarket"],"regulator":"https://kansspelautoriteit.nl/sites/default/files/2026-02/2026-01-20_22310_LOD%20Adventure%20One%20SQQ%20Inc._sanctiebesluit.pdf","press":["https://nltimes.nl/2026/02/17/dutch-regulator-threatens-polymarket-eu420k-weekly-fines-unlicensed-gambling","https://www.ccn.com/news/crypto/polymarket-dutch-court-challenge-gambling-penalty/","https://igamingbusiness.com/prediction-markets/ksa-uphold-sanctions-against-polymarket-illegal-online-gambling-despite-appeal/"]},"significance":"pending-landmark","related_cases":[],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":["court appeal at Rechtbank Den Haag reported only in press (SBC News and BNR, early October 2026); case number, filing date and hearing date not found, so filed and status_date are left blank","whether a voorlopige voorziening was requested","whether the EUR 420,000 has been paid"],"id":"GL-NL-0010","slug":"polymarket-v-kansspelautoriteit","title":"Adventure One QSS Inc. (Polymarket) tegen Kansspelautoriteit, last onder dwangsom 20 januari 2026 en beroep bij de rechtbank Den Haag","short_name":"Polymarket v KSA (Netherlands)","jurisdiction":{"country":"NL","state":"","court":"Rechtbank Den Haag (bestuursrecht)","level":"first-instance"},"category":"prediction-markets","case_type":"operator-v-regulator","status":"filed","summary":"The KSA ordered Polymarket on 20 January 2026 (published 17 February 2026) to stop offering event contracts to Dutch users within four weeks under a weekly penalty of EUR 420,000 (maximum EUR 840,000). At the KSA's re-check on 18 February 2026 the offer was still available, so the first weekly penalty was forfeited (notice of 19 February 2026) and collected by the invorderingsbesluit of 19 May 2026; the KSA rejected Polymarket's objections on 23 June 2026, holding that staking value on uncertain events decided by chance is gambling regardless of blockchain infrastructure. In early October 2026 Polymarket brought the dispute before the court in The Hague, arguing the contracts are financial products within the AFM's remit. Parallel bans exist in Portugal, Hungary, France (ANJ blocking July 2026) and a New York action against Polymarket US.","sources":[{"claim":"order 20 Jan 2026, deadline 17 Feb, EUR 420,000/week max EUR 840,000","url":"https://nltimes.nl/2026/02/17/dutch-regulator-threatens-polymarket-eu420k-weekly-fines-unlicensed-gambling","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"collection decision 19 May 2026, objection rejected 23 June 2026, published 8 July 2026","url":"https://sigma.world/news/netherlands-dismisses-polymarket-appeal/","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"court challenge in The Hague, AFM argument, 5-6 Oct 2026","url":"https://www.ccn.com/news/crypto/polymarket-dutch-court-challenge-gambling-penalty/","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"KSA last onder dwangsom 20 Jan 2026, kenmerk 22310/01.370.802, Adventure One QSS Inc., four-week begunstigingstermijn, EUR 420,000 per week, max EUR 840,000, offer via polymarket.com","url":"https://kansspelautoriteit.nl/sites/default/files/2026-02/2026-01-20_22310_LOD%20Adventure%20One%20SQQ%20Inc._sanctiebesluit.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"publication decision for the same order","url":"https://kansspelautoriteit.nl/sites/default/files/2026-02/2026-01-20_22310_Openbaarmakingsbesluit%20LOD_Adventure%20One%20SQQ%20Inc._sanctiebesluit.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"LOD 20 Jan 2026 para 46: four weeks, EUR 420,000 per week, max EUR 840,000, kenmerk 22310/01.370.802","url":"https://kansspelautoriteit.nl/sites/default/files/2026-02/2026-01-20_22310_LOD%20Adventure%20One%20SQQ%20Inc._sanctiebesluit.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"invorderingsbesluit 19 May 2026, EUR 420,000 forfeited by operation of law, kenmerk 22310/01.388.977","url":"https://kansspelautoriteit.nl/sites/default/files/2026-06/2026-05-19_22310_invorderingsbesluit_Adventure%20One%20QSS%20Inc._sanctiebesluit.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"beslissing op bezwaar 23 June 2026: term ended 17 Feb 2026, re-check 18 Feb, notice 19 Feb; objections inadmissible/unfounded, decisions maintained; appeal open at rechtbank","url":"https://kansspelautoriteit.nl/sites/default/files/2026-07/2026-06-23_24971_beslissing%20op%20bezwaar%20Adventure%20One%20QSS%20Inc._sanctiebesluit.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"KSA case page listing all six decisions with dates","url":"https://kansspelautoriteit.nl/adventure-one-qss-inc-polymarket","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/prediction-markets/polymarket-v-kansspelautoriteit/"},{"aliases":["raad van state kansspelautoriteit boete malta 2021","ksa boete artikel 56 vweu"],"docket":"202001871/1/A3","filed":"","claims":["Wok art. 1(1)(a)","art. 56 TFEU"],"status_date":"2021-02-17","parties":{"plaintiffs":"two related Malta-based operators (anonymised)","defendants":["Kansspelautoriteit"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":""},"money":{"fund":0,"currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":"fines of EUR 210,000 and EUR 200,000 (6 June 2018) reduced to EUR 150,000 each"},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://omgevingsweb.nl/jurisprudentie/eclinlrvs2021315/","https://data.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraken/content?id=ECLI:NL:RVS:2021:315"],"regulator":"","press":[]},"significance":"precedent","related_cases":[],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"id":"GL-NL-0011","slug":"raad-van-state-ksa-fines-malta-operators-2021-315","title":"Twee Maltese aanbieders tegen Kansspelautoriteit, Raad van State 17 februari 2021, ECLI:NL:RVS:2021:315","short_name":"Raad van State: online ban compatible with art. 56 TFEU, fines cut to EUR 150,000 each","jurisdiction":{"country":"NL","state":"","court":"Raad van State, Afdeling bestuursrechtspraak","level":"appeal"},"category":"regulator-court","case_type":"operator-v-regulator","status":"judgment","summary":"The Afdeling held the Dutch refusal to license online casino games (a total ban before 2021) proportionate and coherent under EU law and that two group companies could be fined separately, but found the KSA's fine increases inadequately reasoned and set both fines at EUR 150,000. Rechtbank Den Haag (30 Jan 2020, 19/1167) was annulled.","sources":[{"claim":"judgment 17 Feb 2021, case number, amounts, holding","url":"https://omgevingsweb.nl/jurisprudentie/eclinlrvs2021315/","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"Raad van State 17 Feb 2021, 202001871/1/A3","url":"https://data.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraken/content?id=ECLI:NL:RVS:2021:315","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/regulator-court/raad-van-state-ksa-fines-malta-operators-2021-315/"},{"aliases":["raad van state ksa prioriteringsbeleid gedoogbeleid","ksa boete 300.000 raad van state"],"docket":"202100461/1/A3","filed":"","claims":["Wok art. 1(1)(a)","legal certainty, equal treatment, art. 6 ECHR, publication under the Wob"],"status_date":"2022-06-29","parties":{"plaintiffs":"operator of two gambling websites (anonymised)","defendants":["Kansspelautoriteit"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":""},"money":{"fund":0,"currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":"EUR 300,000 fine (31 July 2018) upheld; publication permitted"},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://omgevingsweb.nl/jurisprudentie/eclinlrvs20221833/","https://data.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraken/content?id=ECLI:NL:RVS:2022:1833"],"regulator":"","press":[]},"significance":"routine","related_cases":["GL-NL-0001"],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"id":"GL-NL-0012","slug":"raad-van-state-ksa-fine-300000-prioritisation-policy-2022","title":"Onvergunde aanbieder tegen Kansspelautoriteit, Raad van State 29 juni 2022, ECLI:NL:RVS:2022:1833","short_name":"Raad van State: KSA prioritisation criteria were no tolerance policy","jurisdiction":{"country":"NL","state":"","court":"Raad van State, Afdeling bestuursrechtspraak","level":"appeal"},"category":"regulator-court","case_type":"operator-v-regulator","status":"judgment","summary":"The Afdeling confirmed Rechtbank Den Haag (10 Dec 2020, 19/1920): the KSA's prioritisation policy was not a tolerance policy, operators had two months to adapt to tightened criteria, the fine was proportionate and no CJEU questions were needed. The finding matters for the refund litigation, where operators invoked the same \"gedoogbeleid\".","sources":[{"claim":"judgment 29 June 2022, case number, EUR 300,000, holding","url":"https://omgevingsweb.nl/jurisprudentie/eclinlrvs20221833/","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"Raad van State 29 June 2022, 202100461/1/A3","url":"https://data.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraken/content?id=ECLI:NL:RVS:2022:1833","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/regulator-court/raad-van-state-ksa-fine-300000-prioritisation-policy-2022/"},{"aliases":["cruks omzeilen eigen schuld rechter","casino sevens zorgplicht vonnis"],"docket":"ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2026:3802 (kantonrechter 11752791 \\ CV EXPL 25-3932)","filed":"","claims":["zorgplicht","onrechtmatige daad"],"status_date":"2026-04-08","parties":{"plaintiffs":"self-excluded player (losses over EUR 14,000)","defendants":["Casino Sevens"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":""},"money":{"fund":0,"currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":"claims dismissed; player ordered to pay EUR 1,008 costs in the main action and EUR 432 in the incident (8 April 2026)"},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://data.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraken/content?id=ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2026:3802"],"regulator":"","press":["https://casinobeats.com/nl/2026/04/22/rechter-onverbiddelijk-eigen-schuld-bij-omzeilen-cruks/"]},"significance":"routine","related_cases":[],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"id":"GL-NL-0020","slug":"casino-sevens-cruks-circumvention-claim-rejected-2026","title":"Speler tegen Casino Sevens, Rechtbank Noord-Holland 2026, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2026:3802","short_name":"No damages for player who circumvented CRUKS with a friend's ID","jurisdiction":{"country":"NL","state":"","court":"Rechtbank Noord-Holland","level":"first-instance"},"category":"addiction-duty-of-care","case_type":"individual","status":"dismissed","summary":"A player registered in CRUKS entered venues using a friend's look-alike driving licence and the fast-lane system, then claimed the casino should have spotted his excessive play. The court found the casino had monitored and warned him and was not liable for his identity fraud.","sources":[{"claim":"ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2026:3802, facts and holding (press, April 2026)","url":"https://casinobeats.com/nl/2026/04/22/rechter-onverbiddelijk-eigen-schuld-bij-omzeilen-cruks/","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"Rechtbank Noord-Holland 8 April 2026, kantonzaak 11752791 CV EXPL 25-3932","url":"https://data.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraken/content?id=ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2026:3802","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"kantonrechter Noord-Holland 8 April 2026, vorderingen afgewezen, costs EUR 1,008 and EUR 432","url":"https://data.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraken/content?id=ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2026:3802","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/addiction-duty-of-care/casino-sevens-cruks-circumvention-claim-rejected-2026/"},{"aliases":["betfair raad van state 2011","betfair vergunning nederland sporttotalisator"],"docket":"200700622/1/H3-A (ECLI:NL:RVS:2011:BP8768)","filed":"","claims":["Wok single-licence system for sports betting and totalisator","art. 49 EC (56 TFEU)"],"status_date":"2011-03-23","parties":{"plaintiffs":"The Sporting Exchange Ltd (Betfair)","defendants":["Minister van Justitie"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":""},"money":{"fund":0,"currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://data.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraken/content?id=ECLI:NL:RVS:2011:BP8768"],"regulator":"","press":[]},"significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-EU-0205","GL-NL-0026"],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"id":"GL-NL-0025","slug":"betfair-v-minister-van-justitie-raad-van-state-2011","title":"The Sporting Exchange Ltd (Betfair) tegen Minister van Justitie, Raad van State 23 maart 2011, ECLI:NL:RVS:2011:BP8768 (na HvJ C-203/08)","short_name":"Betfair v Minister: single-licence system lawful, but Betfair should have been allowed to compete (2011)","jurisdiction":{"country":"NL","state":"","court":"Raad van State, Afdeling bestuursrechtspraak","level":"appeal"},"category":"licensing-administrative","case_type":"operator-v-regulator","status":"judgment","summary":"Betfair challenged the 2005 refusal of Dutch licences and the renewal of De Lotto's (sports betting) and Scientific Games Racing's (totalisator) exclusive licences without a tender; it appealed to the Afdeling bestuursrechtspraak in January 2007. After the CJEU judgment of 3 June 2010 (C-203/08) the Raad van State held on 23 March 2011 that the single-licence systems as such comply with EU law, but that the minister had restricted the free movement of services by not letting Betfair compete for the licences; Betfair's UK licence gave it no right to offer online gambling in the Netherlands. No further appeal is possible.","sources":[{"claim":"Dutch government letter: Raad van State March 2011 ruling on single-licence systems","url":"https://www.officielebekendmakingen.nl/kst-32264-25.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"CJEU C-203/08 3 June 2010","url":"https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/P_64502/en","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"Raad van State press release 23 March 2011: Betfair should have been allowed to compete; single-licence system; UK licence no right to offer in NL","url":"https://www.raadvanstate.nl/@8199/betfair-had-kans/","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"ECLI:NL:RVS:2011:BP8768, 23 March 2011, case 200700622/1/H3-A","url":"https://data.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraken/content?id=ECLI:NL:RVS:2011:BP8768","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/licensing-administrative/betfair-v-minister-van-justitie-raad-van-state-2011/"},{"aliases":["kansspelbelasting duitse lotto hoge raad 2017","buitenlandse loterij winst belasting nederland"],"docket":"17/01386 (ECLI:NL:HR:2017:3130)","filed":"","claims":["Wet op de kansspelbelasting (foreign lottery winnings)","EU free movement"],"status_date":"2017-12-15","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Dutch resident who won a German lottery prize","defendants":["Staatssecretaris van Financiën"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":""},"money":{"fund":0,"currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":"kansspelbelasting assessment of EUR 1,015,492 on a Westdeutsche Lotterie jackpot of EUR 3,501,699.60 won on 28 April 2012 (shared with three others) upheld; cassation appeal dismissed 15 Dec 2017"},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://data.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraken/content?id=ECLI:NL:HR:2017:3130"],"regulator":"","press":[]},"significance":"routine","related_cases":[],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"id":"GL-NL-0029","slug":"hoge-raad-german-lotto-winner-kansspelbelasting-2017","title":"Hoge Raad 15 december 2017, ECLI:NL:HR:2017:3130 (Nederlandse winnaar Duitse lotto)","short_name":"Dutch winner of German lotto owes Dutch gambling tax","jurisdiction":{"country":"NL","state":"","court":"Hoge Raad der Nederlanden","level":"supreme"},"category":"tax","case_type":"individual","status":"judgment","summary":"The Hoge Raad confirmed that a Dutch resident's winnings from the German Lotto are subject to Dutch kansspelbelasting, rejecting the EU-law objections.","sources":[{"claim":"HR 15 Dec 2017 ECLI:NL:HR:2017:3130 (V-N 2017/62.12 summary via SERP)","url":"https://deeplink.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraak?id=ECLI:NL:HR:2017:3130","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"HR 15 Dec 2017, 17/01386","url":"https://data.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraken/content?id=ECLI:NL:HR:2017:3130","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"HR 15 Dec 2017 (17/01386): beroep in cassatie ongegrond; prize EUR 3,501,699.60; naheffingsaanslag EUR 1,015,492","url":"https://data.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraken/content?id=ECLI:NL:HR:2017:3130","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/tax/hoge-raad-german-lotto-winner-kansspelbelasting-2017/"},{"aliases":["norsk lotteri staten dom","norsk lotteri borgarting 2021 enerettsmodellen","norsk tipping monopol eøs dom 2021"],"docket":"Oslo tingrett 16-068609TVI-OTIR/07; HR-2021-2262-U","filed":"2016","claims":["EEA Agreement art. 31 (freedom of establishment)","suitability and consistency of the exclusive-rights model given market and technology changes"],"status_date":"2021-11-19","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Norsk Lotteri AS (Norwegian private lottery company)","defendants":["Staten"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":""},"money":{"fund":0,"currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://lottstift.no/content/uploads/2023/06/Dom_av_1._juni_2023.pdf"],"regulator":"","press":[]},"significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-NO-0001","GL-NO-0005"],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"id":"GL-NO-0003","slug":"norsk-lotteri-v-staten-monopoly-eea","title":"Norsk Lotteri AS mot Staten, Oslo tingrett 25. oktober 2019, Borgarting lagmannsrett 1. juli 2021, Høyesterett HR-2021-2262-U (19. november 2021)","short_name":"Norsk Lotteri fails to topple the Norsk Tipping monopoly","jurisdiction":{"country":"NO","state":"","court":"Borgarting lagmannsrett; appeal refused by Høyesteretts ankeutvalg","level":"appeal"},"category":"licensing-administrative","case_type":"operator-v-regulator","status":"judgment","summary":"The first court challenge to the monopoly since 2008. Oslo tingrett (25 October 2019) relied on the 2007 and 2008 precedents; Borgarting lagmannsrett held on 1 July 2021 that the exclusive-rights model is suitable to channel players to a more responsible offer and is applied systematically and consistently, and the Supreme Court appeals committee refused leave on 19 November 2021. The Trannel courts later treated the judgment as settling the EEA question.","sources":[{"claim":"Borgarting 2023 judgment recounting Norsk Lotteri: Borgarting 1 July 2021, HR-2021-2262-U 19 Nov 2021, Oslo tingrett case number","url":"https://lottstift.no/content/uploads/2023/06/Dom_av_1._juni_2023.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"Oslo tingrett 25 Oct 2019 (press via SERP; UiO webinar)","url":"https://jus.uio.no/senter-for-europarett/forskning/arrangementer/2020/materiale/2020-cb-webinar-gamling-law-uio-20-8-20.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"}],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/licensing-administrative/norsk-lotteri-v-staten-monopoly-eea/"},{"id":"GL-PH-0013","slug":"evangelista-v-pagcor-pogo-rules-2023","title":"Evangelista v. PAGCOR; Cruz v. PAGCOR; Anti-Trapo Movement v. PAGCOR, G.R. Nos. 228234, 228315 and 230080","short_name":"POGO rules petitions dismissed (Evangelista v PAGCOR)","aliases":["evangelista v pagcor","pogo rules supreme court petition dismissed","anti-trapo movement v pagcor"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"PH","state":"","court":"Supreme Court of the Philippines, En Banc","level":"supreme"},"docket":"G.R. Nos. 228234, 228315 and 230080","filed":"2016","category":"licensing-administrative","case_type":"constitutional","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Jovencio H. Evangelista; Miguel Daniel C. Cruz; Anti-Trapo Movement of the Philippines, Inc.","defendants":["PAGCOR et al."],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"Lopez, J."},"claims":["prohibition/certiorari against the Rules and Regulations for Philippine Offshore Gaming Operations approved 1 September 2016; whether PAGCOR's charter allows it to license offshore online gaming"],"status":"dismissed","status_date":"2023-04-25","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"PHP","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/69258","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":[],"regulator":"","press":["https://www.abs-cbn.com/news/2024/3/6/sc-denies-petition-vs-pagcor-s-authority-over-pogos-1623"]},"summary":"Three petitions filed in 2016-2017 argued PAGCOR had no power to license POGOs; on 25 April 2023 (published March 2024) the Court en banc dismissed them for breach of the hierarchy of courts, lack of an actual case and lack of standing, without ruling on the POGO rules' legality. The POGO regime therefore ended by executive order in 2024 rather than by judicial decision.","significance":"routine","related_cases":["GL-PH-0004","GL-PH-0011","GL-PH-0015"],"sources":[{"claim":"G.R. Nos. 228234, 228315, 230080, 25 April 2023, petitions dismissed on procedural grounds","url":"https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/69258","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/licensing-administrative/evangelista-v-pagcor-pogo-rules-2023/"},{"id":"GL-PH-0009","slug":"bloomberry-resorts-v-bir-solaire-franchise-tax-2016","title":"Bloomberry Resorts and Hotels, Inc. v. Bureau of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 212530","short_name":"Bloomberry (Solaire) v BIR: licensees pay 5% franchise tax in lieu of income tax","aliases":["bloomberry v bir","solaire tax case supreme court","pagcor licensees income tax exemption"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"PH","state":"","court":"Supreme Court of the Philippines, Third Division","level":"supreme"},"docket":"G.R. No. 212530","filed":"2014","category":"tax","case_type":"operator-v-regulator","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Bloomberry Resorts and Hotels, Inc. (Solaire Resort & Casino, PAGCOR licensee)","defendants":["Bureau of Internal Revenue (Commissioner Kim S. Jacinto-Henares)"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"Perez, J."},"claims":["validity of RMC 33-2013 insofar as it imposes corporate income tax on a PAGCOR licensee's gaming income; PD 1869 s 13(2)(b)"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2016-08-10","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"PHP","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2016/aug2016/gr_212530_2016.html","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":[],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"Solaire's operator asked the Court to extend the 2014 PAGCOR ruling to licensees; on 10 August 2016 the Court ordered the BIR to cease imposing income tax on Bloomberry's gaming income, holding that PD 1869 s 13(2)(b) passes PAGCOR's exemption to entities contracting with it in casino operations once the 5% franchise tax is paid. The key tax precedent for Entertainment City integrated resorts, later narrowed in Thunderbird (2020) for licensees running their own casinos before 2010s licence terms.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-PH-0007","GL-PH-0010"],"sources":[{"claim":"G.R. No. 212530, 10 August 2016, cease and desist order against RMC 33-2013; G.R. No. 212530, 10 August 2016, Perez J, Third Division, BIR to cease and desist from RMC 33-2013 as to Bloomberry's gaming income","url":"https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2016/aug2016/gr_212530_2016.html","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/tax/bloomberry-resorts-v-bir-solaire-franchise-tax-2016/"},{"id":"GL-PH-0010","slug":"thunderbird-pilipinas-v-cir-income-tax-2020","title":"Thunderbird Pilipinas Hotels and Resorts, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 211327","short_name":"Thunderbird v CIR (licensee operating own casino is taxable)","aliases":["thunderbird v commissioner of internal revenue","pagcor licensee deficiency income tax 2020","poro point casino tax case"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"PH","state":"","court":"Supreme Court of the Philippines, Third Division","level":"supreme"},"docket":"G.R. No. 211327","filed":"2014","category":"tax","case_type":"operator-v-regulator","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Thunderbird Pilipinas Hotels and Resorts, Inc.","defendants":["Commissioner of Internal Revenue"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"Leonen, J."},"claims":["deficiency income tax and expanded withholding tax for 2006 (PHP 17,929,817.09 with surcharge and interest); scope of PD 1869 s 13(2)(b) exemption for PAGCOR licensees"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2020-11-11","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"PHP","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":"PHP 17,929,817.09 deficiency income and expanded withholding taxes plus 20% delinquency interest from 10 April 2009"},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2020/nov2020/gr_211327_2020.html","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":[],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"The Court of Tax Appeals assessed the Poro Point casino licensee PHP 17.9m for 2006; on 11 November 2020 the Supreme Court affirmed, holding that s 13(2)(b) of PD 1869 covers only parties contracting with PAGCOR for PAGCOR's own casino operations, not private entities licensed to run their own casinos. Read with Bloomberry it draws the line between contractees and licensees for Philippine casino taxation.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-PH-0009","GL-PH-0008"],"sources":[{"claim":"G.R. No. 211327, 11 November 2020, petition denied, amounts and holding; G.R. No. 211327, 11 November 2020, Leonen J, Third Division, petition denied, CTA En Banc 29 January 2014 affirmed; PHP 17,929,817.09 (income tax 12,488,946.65 + EWT 5,440,870.44) plus 20% delinquency interest from 10 April 2009","url":"https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2020/nov2020/gr_211327_2020.html","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/tax/thunderbird-pilipinas-v-cir-income-tax-2020/"},{"id":"GL-PH-0008","slug":"pagcor-v-thunderbird-pilipinas-poro-point-closure-2014","title":"PAGCOR v. Thunderbird Pilipinas Hotels and Resorts, Inc., Eastbay Resorts, Inc. and Judge Jurado, G.R. Nos. 197942-43 and 199528","short_name":"PAGCOR v Thunderbird (Poro Point casino closure injunction)","aliases":["pagcor v thunderbird","fiesta casino poro point closure","thunderbird eastbay injunction pagcor"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"PH","state":"","court":"Supreme Court of the Philippines, First Division","level":"supreme"},"docket":"G.R. Nos. 197942-43 and 199528","filed":"2011","category":"licensing-administrative","case_type":"operator-v-regulator","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Thunderbird Pilipinas Hotels and Resorts, Inc. (Fiesta Casino, Poro Point) and Eastbay Resorts, Inc. (Binangonan)","defendants":["PAGCOR"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"Reyes, J. (SC); Judge Cicero Jurado Jr., RTC Manila Branch 11"},"claims":["specific performance and damages after PAGCOR's cessation notice (30 May 2011) and closure order (7 June 2011) asserting the licensees' authority expired 6 August 2009","PAGCOR certiorari against the RTC's TRO and preliminary injunctions (23 June and 13 October 2011)"],"status":"dismissed","status_date":"2014-03-26","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"USD","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":"US$100 million investment commitment under the 2006 MOA"},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_197942_2014.html","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":[],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"PAGCOR ordered two licensed casinos closed in June 2011 claiming their authority had lapsed; the Manila RTC enjoined the closure and PAGCOR went straight to the Supreme Court. On 26 March 2014 the petitions were dismissed as moot after the parties jointly dismissed the suits in 2012, with the Court also faulting PAGCOR's skipping of a motion for reconsideration and the hierarchy of courts. The leading example of a licensee stopping a PAGCOR shutdown by injunction.","significance":"routine","related_cases":["GL-PH-0010"],"sources":[{"claim":"G.R. Nos. 197942-43 and 199528, 26 March 2014, facts and dismissal","url":"https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_197942_2014.html","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/licensing-administrative/pagcor-v-thunderbird-pilipinas-poro-point-closure-2014/"},{"id":"GL-PH-0005","slug":"pagcor-v-philippine-gaming-jurisdiction-zamboanga-ecozone-2009","title":"PAGCOR v. Philippine Gaming Jurisdiction Inc. and Zamboanga City Special Economic Zone Authority, G.R. No. 177333","short_name":"PAGCOR v PEJI (Zamboanga ecozone cannot license online gaming)","aliases":["pagcor v philippine gaming jurisdiction","zamboecozone online gaming licence","peji master licensor case"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"PH","state":"","court":"Supreme Court of the Philippines, Second Division","level":"supreme"},"docket":"G.R. No. 177333","filed":"2007","category":"licensing-administrative","case_type":"regulator-v-operator","parties":{"plaintiffs":"PAGCOR","defendants":["Philippine Gaming Jurisdiction Inc. (PEJI)","Zamboanga City Special Economic Zone Authority"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"Carpio Morales, J."},"claims":["prohibition: whether RA 7903 s 7(f) ('games, amusements') lets the Zamboecozone Authority license online and internet gaming"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2009-04-24","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"PHP","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_177333_2009.html","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":[],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"The Zamboanga ecozone appointed PEJI as master licensor for online gaming in 2006; PAGCOR sued and on 24 April 2009 the Supreme Court ordered both to cease, holding that 'games and amusements' in RA 7903 does not include games of chance, unlike the express casino powers given to Subic and Cagayan. The case explains why only Cagayan (CEZA) and later PAGCOR could license offshore online gaming.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-PH-0004","GL-PH-0013"],"sources":[{"claim":"G.R. No. 177333, 24 April 2009, petition granted, cease and desist; G.R. No. 177333, 24 April 2009, Carpio Morales J, Second Division, petition granted, ZAMBOECOZONE and PEJI to cease","url":"https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_177333_2009.html","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/licensing-administrative/pagcor-v-philippine-gaming-jurisdiction-zamboanga-ecozone-2009/"},{"id":"GL-PH-0006","slug":"pagcor-v-bir-income-tax-2011","title":"PAGCOR v. Bureau of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 172087 (2011)","short_name":"PAGCOR v BIR 2011 (income tax exemption removed, VAT regulation void)","aliases":["pagcor v bir 2011","ra 9337 pagcor income tax","pagcor vat exemption"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"PH","state":"","court":"Supreme Court of the Philippines, En Banc","level":"supreme"},"docket":"G.R. No. 172087","filed":"2006","category":"tax","case_type":"operator-v-regulator","parties":{"plaintiffs":"PAGCOR","defendants":["Bureau of Internal Revenue (Commissioner Jose Mario Buñag) et al."],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"Peralta, J."},"claims":["constitutionality of RA 9337 s 1 deleting PAGCOR from income-tax-exempt GOCCs (equal protection, non-impairment)","validity of Revenue Regulations 16-2005 imposing 10% VAT on PAGCOR"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2011-03-15","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"PHP","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_172087_2011.html","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":[],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"On 15 March 2011 the Court upheld Congress's removal of PAGCOR's corporate income tax exemption (the exemption had been granted at PAGCOR's own request, so no equal-protection violation; a franchise is not a contract) but struck down the BIR regulation subjecting PAGCOR to VAT, which remains exempt under special law. The BIR's attempt to tax all PAGCOR income afterwards led to the 2014 clarification.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-PH-0007","GL-PH-0009","GL-PH-0010"],"sources":[{"claim":"G.R. No. 172087, 15 March 2011, dispositive portion; G.R. No. 172087, 15 March 2011, Peralta J, En Banc, petition partly granted: s 1 RA 9337 valid, RR 16-2005 void as to 10% VAT","url":"https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/gr_172087_2011.html","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/tax/pagcor-v-bir-income-tax-2011/"},{"id":"GL-PH-0004","slug":"jaworski-v-pagcor-internet-gaming-2004","title":"Jaworski v. PAGCOR and Sports and Games Entertainment Corporation, G.R. No. 144463","short_name":"Jaworski v PAGCOR (internet gaming authority void)","aliases":["jaworski v pagcor","sage internet gambling philippines","pagcor online gambling contract nullified 2004"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"PH","state":"","court":"Supreme Court of the Philippines, En Banc","level":"supreme"},"docket":"G.R. No. 144463","filed":"2000","category":"licensing-administrative","case_type":"constitutional","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Senator Robert S. Jaworski","defendants":["PAGCOR","Sports and Games Entertainment Corporation (SAGE)"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"Ynares-Santiago, J."},"claims":["nullity of PAGCOR's 1998 Grant of Authority to SAGE to run sports betting stations and internet gaming"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2004-01-14","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"PHP","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/jan2004/gr_144463_2004.html","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":[],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"PAGCOR let SAGE run internet gambling under its franchise from 1998; on 14 January 2004 the Supreme Court declared the grant null and void because a legislative franchise cannot be delegated and SAGE needed its own. The earliest Philippine ruling on online gambling and the reason PAGCOR later regulated e-games and POGOs under its own charter rather than by delegation.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-PH-0003","GL-PH-0013"],"sources":[{"claim":"G.R. No. 144463, 14 January 2004, grant of authority declared null and void; G.R. No. 144463, 14 January 2004, Ynares-Santiago J, En Banc, grant of authority to SAGE null and void","url":"https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/jan2004/gr_144463_2004.html","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/licensing-administrative/jaworski-v-pagcor-internet-gaming-2004/"},{"id":"GL-PH-0003","slug":"del-mar-v-pagcor-jai-alai-2000","title":"Del Mar v. PAGCOR, Belle Jai-Alai Corporation and Filipinas Gaming Entertainment Totalizator Corporation, G.R. Nos. 138298 and 138982","short_name":"Del Mar v PAGCOR (no jai-alai franchise)","aliases":["del mar v pagcor","jai alai pagcor supreme court","belle jai alai case"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"PH","state":"","court":"Supreme Court of the Philippines, En Banc","level":"supreme"},"docket":"G.R. Nos. 138298 and 138982","filed":"1999-05","category":"licensing-administrative","case_type":"constitutional","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Raoul B. del Mar; Federico S. Sandoval II and Michael T. Defensor (members of the House of Representatives); Juan Miguel Zubiri (intervenor)","defendants":["PAGCOR","Belle Jai-Alai Corporation","Filipinas Gaming Entertainment Totalizator Corporation"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"Puno, J."},"claims":["whether PAGCOR's franchise under PD 1869 includes jai-alai and whether it may share operations with private partners under the June 1999 agreement"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2000-11-29","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"PHP","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/nov2000/gr_138298_2000.html","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":[],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"Legislators challenged PAGCOR's revival of jai-alai with Belle and Filgame; on 29 November 2000 the Court held that PD 1869 authorises gambling casinos only, that franchises touching public morals are strictly construed, and enjoined the jai-alai operation and the agreement. Together with Jaworski (2004) it is the leading authority that PAGCOR cannot stretch or share its franchise.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-PH-0004","GL-PH-0005"],"sources":[{"claim":"G.R. Nos. 138298 and 138982, 29 November 2000, petitions granted, jai-alai enjoined; G.R. Nos. 138298 (filed May 1999, supplemental August 1999) and 138982 (filed July 1999), 29 November 2000, Puno J, En Banc, petitions granted, jai-alai enjoined","url":"https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/nov2000/gr_138298_2000.html","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/licensing-administrative/del-mar-v-pagcor-jai-alai-2000/"},{"id":"GL-PH-0002","slug":"magtajas-v-pryce-properties-and-pagcor-1994","title":"Magtajas and City of Cagayan de Oro v. Pryce Properties Corporation and PAGCOR, G.R. No. 111097","short_name":"Magtajas v Pryce (cities cannot ban PAGCOR casinos)","aliases":["magtajas v pryce properties","cagayan de oro casino ordinance","local government ban casino philippines"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"PH","state":"","court":"Supreme Court of the Philippines, En Banc","level":"supreme"},"docket":"G.R. No. 111097","filed":"1993","category":"licensing-administrative","case_type":"constitutional","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Mayor Pablo P. Magtajas and the City of Cagayan de Oro","defendants":["Pryce Properties Corporation, Inc.","Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"Cruz, J."},"claims":["validity of City Ordinances 3353 (7 December 1992) and 3375-93 (4 January 1993) prohibiting casino operation; Local Government Code vs PD 1869"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"1994-07-20","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"PHP","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":"costs against petitioners"},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1994/jul1994/gr_111097_1994.html","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":[],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"Cagayan de Oro tried to stop a PAGCOR casino with two ordinances; the Court of Appeals voided them and on 20 July 1994 the Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Local Government Code lets cities suppress only gambling prohibited by law and that PD 1869 was neither repealed nor modified. The case fixes PAGCOR's supremacy over local anti-casino measures.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-PH-0001"],"sources":[{"claim":"G.R. No. 111097, 20 July 1994, petition denied, ordinances void; G.R. No. 111097, 20 July 1994, Cruz J, En Banc, petition denied, CA affirmed, costs against petitioners; Pryce dropped as respondent 13 June 1994","url":"https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1994/jul1994/gr_111097_1994.html","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/licensing-administrative/magtajas-v-pryce-properties-and-pagcor-1994/"},{"id":"GL-PH-0001","slug":"basco-v-pagcor-1991","title":"Basco v. Philippine Amusements and Gaming Corporation, G.R. No. 91649","short_name":"Basco v PAGCOR (PAGCOR charter upheld)","aliases":["basco v pagcor","pd 1869 constitutionality","pagcor charter supreme court 1991"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"PH","state":"","court":"Supreme Court of the Philippines, En Banc","level":"supreme"},"docket":"G.R. No. 91649","filed":"1989","category":"regulator-court","case_type":"constitutional","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Attorneys Humberto Basco, Edilberto Balce, Socrates Maranan and Lorenzo Sanchez (lawyers and taxpayers)","defendants":["Philippine Amusements and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR)"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"Paras, J."},"claims":["annulment of Presidential Decree 1869 (PAGCOR charter) as contrary to morals and public policy, local autonomy, equal protection and the anti-monopoly policy"],"status":"dismissed","status_date":"1991-05-14","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"PHP","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/may1991/gr_91649_1991.html","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":[],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"The first constitutional attack on PAGCOR's charter was dismissed on 14 May 1991: the Court held that gambling policy is for the political branches, that PAGCOR as a government instrumentality is exempt from local taxes and fees, and that treating state-run gambling differently from other gambling is a reasonable classification. Every later PAGCOR case builds on this ruling.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-PH-0002","GL-PH-0006"],"sources":[{"claim":"G.R. No. 91649, 14 May 1991, petition dismissed for lack of merit; G.R. No. 91649, 14 May 1991, Paras J, En Banc, petition dismissed for lack of merit","url":"https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/may1991/gr_91649_1991.html","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/regulator-court/basco-v-pagcor-1991/"},{"aliases":["casinostugan ltd spelinspektionen sanktionsavgift","casinostugan ltd sweden fine 2020"],"docket":"6235-19","filed":"","claims":["spellagen (2018:1138) 8 kap. 2 § 2 (betting on events where most participants are under 18)","licence conditions"],"status_date":"2020-04-01","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Casinostugan Ltd","defendants":["Spelinspektionen"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":""},"money":{"fund":0,"currency":"SEK","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":"SEK 3,500,000 reduced to SEK 3,000,000"},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://www.domstol.se/globalassets/filer/domstol/forvaltningsratten_linkoping/pressmeddelanden/linkoping-fr-6235-19-dom-2020-04-01.pdf"],"regulator":"https://www.spelinspektionen.se/vara-beslut/","press":[]},"significance":"routine","related_cases":[],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"id":"GL-SE-0005","slug":"casinostugan-v-spelinspektionen-2020","title":"Casinostugan Ltd mot Spelinspektionen, FR Linköping 6235-19","short_name":"Casinostugan under-18 betting sanction","jurisdiction":{"country":"SE","state":"","court":"Förvaltningsrätten i Linköping","level":"regulatory-court"},"category":"regulator-court","case_type":"operator-v-regulator","status":"judgment","summary":"Spelinspektionen on 26 June or 21 August 2019 (dnr 19SI997) issued Casinostugan Ltd a warning and a SEK 3,500,000 sanction fee for offering betting on matches where most participants were under 18, in the first enforcement wave after the 2019 re-regulation. Förvaltningsrätten i Linköping ruled on 2020-04-01: appeal partly allowed, fee set at SEK 3,000,000.","sources":[{"claim":"judgment 1 April 2020, mål 6235-19, SEK 3.5M to 3M","url":"https://www.domstol.se/globalassets/filer/domstol/forvaltningsratten_linkoping/pressmeddelanden/linkoping-fr-6235-19-dom-2020-04-01.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/regulator-court/casinostugan-v-spelinspektionen-2020/"},{"aliases":["snabbare ltd spelinspektionen sanktionsavgift","snabbare ltd sweden fine 2020"],"docket":"7725-19","filed":"","claims":["spellagen (2018:1138) 8 kap. 2 § 2 (betting on events where most participants are under 18)","licence conditions"],"status_date":"2020-04-01","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Snabbare Ltd","defendants":["Spelinspektionen"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":""},"money":{"fund":0,"currency":"SEK","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":"SEK 9,500,000 reduced to SEK 8,000,000"},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://www.domstol.se/globalassets/filer/domstol/forvaltningsratten_linkoping/pressmeddelanden/linkoping-fr-7725-19-dom-2020-04-01.pdf"],"regulator":"https://www.spelinspektionen.se/vara-beslut/","press":[]},"significance":"routine","related_cases":[],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"id":"GL-SE-0008","slug":"snabbare-v-spelinspektionen-2020","title":"Snabbare Ltd mot Spelinspektionen, FR Linköping 7725-19","short_name":"Snabbare under-18 betting sanction","jurisdiction":{"country":"SE","state":"","court":"Förvaltningsrätten i Linköping","level":"regulatory-court"},"category":"regulator-court","case_type":"operator-v-regulator","status":"judgment","summary":"Spelinspektionen on 26 June or 21 August 2019 (dnr 19SI995) issued Snabbare Ltd a warning and a SEK 9,500,000 sanction fee for offering betting on matches where most participants were under 18, in the first enforcement wave after the 2019 re-regulation. Förvaltningsrätten i Linköping ruled on 2020-04-01: appeal partly allowed, fee set at SEK 8,000,000.","sources":[{"claim":"judgment 1 April 2020, mål 7725-19","url":"https://www.domstol.se/globalassets/filer/domstol/forvaltningsratten_linkoping/pressmeddelanden/linkoping-fr-7725-19-dom-2020-04-01.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/regulator-court/snabbare-v-spelinspektionen-2020/"},{"aliases":["zecure gaming limited spelinspektionen sanktionsavgift","zecure gaming limited sweden fine 2020"],"docket":"6377-19","filed":"","claims":["spellagen (2018:1138) 8 kap. 2 § 2 (betting on events where most participants are under 18)","licence conditions"],"status_date":"2020-04-01","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Zecure Gaming Limited","defendants":["Spelinspektionen"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":""},"money":{"fund":0,"currency":"SEK","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":"SEK 3,500,000 reduced to SEK 3,000,000"},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://www.domstol.se/globalassets/filer/domstol/forvaltningsratten_linkoping/pressmeddelanden/linkoping-fr-6377-19-dom-2020-04-01.pdf"],"regulator":"https://www.spelinspektionen.se/vara-beslut/","press":[]},"significance":"routine","related_cases":[],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"id":"GL-SE-0009","slug":"zecure-gaming-v-spelinspektionen-2020","title":"Zecure Gaming Limited mot Spelinspektionen, FR Linköping 6377-19","short_name":"Zecure Gaming under-18 betting sanction","jurisdiction":{"country":"SE","state":"","court":"Förvaltningsrätten i Linköping","level":"regulatory-court"},"category":"regulator-court","case_type":"operator-v-regulator","status":"judgment","summary":"Spelinspektionen on 26 June or 21 August 2019 (dnr 19SI999) issued Zecure Gaming Limited a warning and a SEK 3,500,000 sanction fee for offering betting on matches where most participants were under 18, in the first enforcement wave after the 2019 re-regulation. Förvaltningsrätten i Linköping ruled on 2020-04-01: appeal partly allowed, fee set at SEK 3,000,000.","sources":[{"claim":"judgment 1 April 2020, mål 6377-19","url":"https://www.domstol.se/globalassets/filer/domstol/forvaltningsratten_linkoping/pressmeddelanden/linkoping-fr-6377-19-dom-2020-04-01.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/regulator-court/zecure-gaming-v-spelinspektionen-2020/"},{"aliases":["hillside sports enc spelinspektionen sanktionsavgift","hillside sports enc sweden fine 2020"],"docket":"6041-19","filed":"","claims":["spellagen (2018:1138) 8 kap. 2 § 2 (betting on events where most participants are under 18)","licence conditions"],"status_date":"2020-04-01","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Hillside Sports ENC","defendants":["Spelinspektionen"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":""},"money":{"fund":0,"currency":"SEK","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":"SEK 10,000,000 upheld"},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://www.domstol.se/globalassets/filer/domstol/forvaltningsratten_linkoping/pressmeddelanden/linkoping-fr-6041-19-dom-2020-04-01.pdf"],"regulator":"https://www.spelinspektionen.se/vara-beslut/","press":[]},"significance":"routine","related_cases":["GL-SE-0022"],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"id":"GL-SE-0010","slug":"hillside-sports-v-spelinspektionen-2020","title":"Hillside Sports ENC (bet365) mot Spelinspektionen, FR Linköping 6041-19","short_name":"bet365 SEK 10M under-18 betting sanction upheld","jurisdiction":{"country":"SE","state":"","court":"Förvaltningsrätten i Linköping","level":"regulatory-court"},"category":"regulator-court","case_type":"operator-v-regulator","status":"judgment","summary":"Spelinspektionen on 26 June or 21 August 2019 (dnr 19SI1212) issued Hillside Sports ENC a warning and a SEK 10,000,000 sanction fee for offering betting on matches where most participants were under 18, in the first enforcement wave after the 2019 re-regulation. Förvaltningsrätten i Linköping ruled on 2020-04-01: appeal dismissed, SEK 10,000,000 upheld.","sources":[{"claim":"judgment 1 April 2020, mål 6041-19","url":"https://www.domstol.se/globalassets/filer/domstol/forvaltningsratten_linkoping/pressmeddelanden/linkoping-fr-6041-19-dom-2020-04-01.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/regulator-court/hillside-sports-v-spelinspektionen-2020/"},{"aliases":["comeon sweden ltd spelinspektionen sanktionsavgift","comeon sweden ltd sweden fine 2020"],"docket":"7732-19","filed":"","claims":["spellagen (2018:1138) 8 kap. 2 § 2 (betting on events where most participants are under 18)","licence conditions"],"status_date":"2020-04-01","parties":{"plaintiffs":"ComeOn Sweden Ltd","defendants":["Spelinspektionen"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":""},"money":{"fund":0,"currency":"SEK","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":"SEK 6,000,000 reduced to SEK 5,500,000"},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://www.domstol.se/globalassets/filer/domstol/forvaltningsratten_linkoping/pressmeddelanden/linkoping-fr-7732-19-dom-2020-04-01.pdf"],"regulator":"https://www.spelinspektionen.se/vara-beslut/","press":[]},"significance":"routine","related_cases":[],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"id":"GL-SE-0011","slug":"comeon-sweden-v-spelinspektionen-2020","title":"ComeOn Sweden Ltd mot Spelinspektionen, FR Linköping 7732-19","short_name":"ComeOn under-18 betting sanction","jurisdiction":{"country":"SE","state":"","court":"Förvaltningsrätten i Linköping","level":"regulatory-court"},"category":"regulator-court","case_type":"operator-v-regulator","status":"judgment","summary":"Spelinspektionen on 26 June or 21 August 2019 (dnr 19SI998) issued ComeOn Sweden Ltd a warning and a SEK 6,000,000 sanction fee for offering betting on matches where most participants were under 18, in the first enforcement wave after the 2019 re-regulation. Förvaltningsrätten i Linköping ruled on 2020-04-01: appeal partly allowed, fee set at SEK 5,500,000.","sources":[{"claim":"judgment 1 April 2020, mål 7732-19","url":"https://www.domstol.se/globalassets/filer/domstol/forvaltningsratten_linkoping/pressmeddelanden/linkoping-fr-7732-19-dom-2020-04-01.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/regulator-court/comeon-sweden-v-spelinspektionen-2020/"},{"aliases":["hajper ltd spelinspektionen sanktionsavgift","hajper ltd sweden fine 2020"],"docket":"7728-19","filed":"","claims":["spellagen (2018:1138) 8 kap. 2 § 2 (betting on events where most participants are under 18)","licence conditions"],"status_date":"2020-04-01","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Hajper Ltd","defendants":["Spelinspektionen"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":""},"money":{"fund":0,"currency":"SEK","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":"SEK 4,500,000 reduced to SEK 4,000,000"},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://www.domstol.se/globalassets/filer/domstol/forvaltningsratten_linkoping/pressmeddelanden/linkoping-fr-7728-19-dom-2020-04-01.pdf"],"regulator":"https://www.spelinspektionen.se/vara-beslut/","press":[]},"significance":"routine","related_cases":[],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"id":"GL-SE-0012","slug":"hajper-v-spelinspektionen-2020","title":"Hajper Ltd mot Spelinspektionen, FR Linköping 7728-19","short_name":"Hajper under-18 betting sanction","jurisdiction":{"country":"SE","state":"","court":"Förvaltningsrätten i Linköping","level":"regulatory-court"},"category":"regulator-court","case_type":"operator-v-regulator","status":"judgment","summary":"Spelinspektionen on 26 June or 21 August 2019 (dnr 19SI996) issued Hajper Ltd a warning and a SEK 4,500,000 sanction fee for offering betting on matches where most participants were under 18, in the first enforcement wave after the 2019 re-regulation. Förvaltningsrätten i Linköping ruled on 2020-04-01: appeal partly allowed, fee set at SEK 4,000,000.","sources":[{"claim":"judgment 1 April 2020, mål 7728-19","url":"https://www.domstol.se/globalassets/filer/domstol/forvaltningsratten_linkoping/pressmeddelanden/linkoping-fr-7728-19-dom-2020-04-01.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/regulator-court/hajper-v-spelinspektionen-2020/"},{"aliases":["mandalorian technologies sanktionsavgift","spelinspektionen bonus 9 miljoner"],"docket":"4728-19","filed":"","claims":["spellagen 14 kap. 9 § bonus restriction"],"status_date":"2020-06-15","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Mandalorian Technologies Limited","defendants":["Spelinspektionen"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":""},"money":{"fund":0,"currency":"SEK","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":"SEK 9,000,000 warning and sanction fee (decision 15 May 2019, dnr 19SI541) upheld"},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://www.domstol.se/globalassets/filer/domstol/forvaltningsratten_linkoping/pressmeddelanden/linkoping-fr-4728-19-dom-2020-06-15.pdf"],"regulator":"","press":[]},"significance":"routine","related_cases":[],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"id":"GL-SE-0013","slug":"mandalorian-technologies-v-spelinspektionen-2020","title":"Mandalorian Technologies Limited mot Spelinspektionen, FR Linköping 4728-19","short_name":"Mandalorian (bonus rules) SEK 9M upheld","jurisdiction":{"country":"SE","state":"","court":"Förvaltningsrätten i Linköping","level":"regulatory-court"},"category":"regulator-court","case_type":"operator-v-regulator","status":"judgment","summary":"Spelinspektionen fined the operator SEK 9 million on 15 May 2019 for repeated bonus offers in breach of the one-bonus rule. Förvaltningsrätten dismissed the appeal on 15 June 2020, one of four bonus judgments that week in which the regulator prevailed.","sources":[{"claim":"judgment 15 June 2020, mål 4728-19","url":"https://www.domstol.se/globalassets/filer/domstol/forvaltningsratten_linkoping/pressmeddelanden/linkoping-fr-4728-19-dom-2020-06-15.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/regulator-court/mandalorian-technologies-v-spelinspektionen-2020/"},{"aliases":["genesis global anmärkning sanktionsavgift bonus"],"docket":"5341-19","filed":"","claims":["spellagen 14 kap. 9 § bonus restriction (VIP programmes)"],"status_date":"2020-06-15","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Genesis Global Limited (C65325)","defendants":["Spelinspektionen"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":""},"money":{"fund":0,"currency":"SEK","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":"remark with SEK 1,700,000 fee (29 May 2019, dnr 19SI543) reduced to SEK 1,200,000"},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://www.domstol.se/globalassets/filer/domstol/forvaltningsratten_linkoping/pressmeddelanden/linkoping-fr-5341-19-dom-2020-06-15.pdf"],"regulator":"","press":[]},"significance":"routine","related_cases":["GL-SE-0015"],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"id":"GL-SE-0014","slug":"genesis-global-vip-bonus-v-spelinspektionen-2020","title":"Genesis Global Limited mot Spelinspektionen, FR Linköping 5341-19 (VIP-bonus)","short_name":"Genesis Global VIP-bonus remark","jurisdiction":{"country":"SE","state":"","court":"Förvaltningsrätten i Linköping","level":"regulatory-court"},"category":"regulator-court","case_type":"operator-v-regulator","status":"judgment","summary":"Genesis Global received a remark and a SEK 1.7 million fee for VIP bonus offers. On 15 June 2020 Förvaltningsrätten reduced the fee to SEK 1.2 million but confirmed the breach.","sources":[{"claim":"judgment 15 June 2020, mål 5341-19","url":"https://www.domstol.se/globalassets/filer/domstol/forvaltningsratten_linkoping/pressmeddelanden/linkoping-fr-5341-19-dom-2020-06-15.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/regulator-court/genesis-global-vip-bonus-v-spelinspektionen-2020/"},{"aliases":["hfd 2023 ref 25","genesis global högsta förvaltningsdomstolen","nettoomsättning sanktionsavgift spellagen"],"docket":"3705-21","filed":"","claims":["spellagen 19 kap. 13 § sanction fee ceiling (10% of turnover)","spelpaus self-exclusion checks"],"status_date":"2023-05-09","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Genesis Global Ltd","defendants":["Spelinspektionen"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":""},"money":{"fund":0,"currency":"SEK","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":"warning upheld; SEK 4,000,000 fee (Spelinspektionen) cut to SEK 1,500,000 (FR Linköping) and SEK 1,000,000 (KR Jönköping); HFD (9 May 2023, mål 3705-21) set the fee rulings aside and remitted; Spelinspektionen then set the fee at SEK 1,000,000 on 31 Aug 2023"},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://www.domstol.se/globalassets/filer/domstol/hogstaforvaltningsdomstolen/2023/domar-och-beslut/3705-21.pdf","https://lagen.nu/dom/hfd/2023:25","https://www.domstol.se/globalassets/filer/domstol/hogstaforvaltningsdomstolen/2023/referat/hfd-2023-ref.-25.pdf"],"regulator":"","press":[]},"significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-SE-0014"],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"id":"GL-SE-0015","slug":"hfd-2023-ref-25-genesis-global-net-turnover","title":"HFD 2023 ref. 25, Genesis Global Ltd mot Spelinspektionen (mål 3705-21)","short_name":"Supreme Administrative Court: sanction fees on net turnover","jurisdiction":{"country":"SE","state":"","court":"Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen","level":"supreme"},"category":"regulator-court","case_type":"operator-v-regulator","status":"judgment","summary":"Genesis Global failed for nine days in January 2019 to check players against the Spelpaus register. The Supreme Administrative Court on 9 May 2023 upheld the warning but held that \"omsättning\" in the Gambling Act means net turnover (stakes minus paid-out winnings) under good accounting practice, so the 10% ceiling and proportionality must be assessed on that basis. The precedent governs every later sanction fee case.","sources":[{"claim":"HFD 2023 ref. 25, 9 May 2023, net turnover holding, lower court history","url":"https://lagen.nu/dom/hfd/2023:25","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"judgment PDF mål 3705-21","url":"https://www.domstol.se/globalassets/filer/domstol/hogstaforvaltningsdomstolen/2023/domar-och-beslut/3705-21.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"HFD 2023 ref. 25, dom 9 May 2023 mål 3705-21: 4M, 1.5M (FR), 1M (KR), remitted","url":"https://www.domstol.se/globalassets/filer/domstol/hogstaforvaltningsdomstolen/2023/referat/hfd-2023-ref.-25.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"remand decision 31 Aug 2023, fee SEK 1,000,000","url":"https://www2.spelinspektionen.se/globalassets/dokument/ovriga-dokument/beslut/varning---anmarkning/genesis-global-limited---varning-och-sanktionsavgift-bristande-integration-mot-spelpaus.se-aterforvisad-fraga-om-sanktionsavgift.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/regulator-court/hfd-2023-ref-25-genesis-global-net-turnover/"},{"aliases":["spooniker 10 miljoner penningtvätt","kindred sweden aml fine 2025"],"docket":"4340-25","filed":"","claims":["spellagen","lagen (2017:630) om åtgärder mot penningtvätt"],"status_date":"2026-07-02","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Spooniker Ltd (Kindred, now FDJ United)","defendants":["Spelinspektionen"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":""},"money":{"fund":0,"currency":"SEK","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":"warning and SEK 10,000,000 fee (5 May 2025) upheld"},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://www.spelinspektionen.se/globalassets/dokument/domar/spooniker-ltd---dom-fr-4340-25-2026-07-02.pdf"],"regulator":"","press":["https://www.realtid.se/juridik/miljonboter-efter-penningtvattsbrister-tre-spelbolag-falls/"]},"significance":"routine","related_cases":["GL-SE-0027","GL-SE-0028"],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"id":"GL-SE-0026","slug":"spooniker-aml-sek-10m-2026","title":"Spooniker Ltd mot Spelinspektionen (spellagen och penningtvättslagen), FR Linköping 4340-25","short_name":"Kindred/Spooniker SEK 10M AML fee upheld","jurisdiction":{"country":"SE","state":"","court":"Förvaltningsrätten i Linköping","level":"regulatory-court"},"category":"regulator-court","case_type":"operator-v-regulator","status":"judgment","summary":"One of three AML judgments of 2 to 3 July 2026 in which Förvaltningsrätten confirmed warnings and fees totalling SEK 22 million against Spooniker, Snabbare and Betsson Nordic for not acting on large deposits and transaction patterns that required enhanced due diligence.","sources":[{"claim":"FR judgment 2 July 2026, mål 4340-25","url":"https://www.spelinspektionen.se/globalassets/dokument/domar/spooniker-ltd---dom-fr-4340-25-2026-07-02.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"three companies, SEK 22M total","url":"https://www.realtid.se/juridik/miljonboter-efter-penningtvattsbrister-tre-spelbolag-falls/","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"}],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/regulator-court/spooniker-aml-sek-10m-2026/"},{"aliases":["snabbare sanktionsavgift 2026"],"docket":"5474-25","filed":"","claims":["spellagen","penningtvättslagen"],"status_date":"2026-07-02","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Snabbare Ltd (ComeOn Group)","defendants":["Spelinspektionen"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":""},"money":{"fund":0,"currency":"SEK","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":"warning and SEK 5,500,000 fee (28 May 2025) upheld"},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://www.spelinspektionen.se/globalassets/dokument/domar/snabbare-ltd---dom-fr-5474-25-2026-07-02.pdf"],"regulator":"","press":[]},"significance":"routine","related_cases":["GL-SE-0026"],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"id":"GL-SE-0027","slug":"snabbare-aml-sek-5-5m-2026","title":"Snabbare Ltd mot Spelinspektionen (penningtvättslagen), FR Linköping 5474-25","short_name":"Snabbare SEK 5.5M AML fee upheld","jurisdiction":{"country":"SE","state":"","court":"Förvaltningsrätten i Linköping","level":"regulatory-court"},"category":"regulator-court","case_type":"operator-v-regulator","status":"judgment","summary":"Snabbare argued that its monitoring, income checks and the \"closed loop\" nature of re-used winnings were sufficient and that more documentation would conflict with data protection law; the court disagreed and upheld the fee in full on 2 July 2026.","sources":[{"claim":"FR judgment 2 July 2026, mål 5474-25","url":"https://www.spelinspektionen.se/globalassets/dokument/domar/snabbare-ltd---dom-fr-5474-25-2026-07-02.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/regulator-court/snabbare-aml-sek-5-5m-2026/"},{"aliases":["betsson högsta domstolen spelmissbrukare","betsson återbetala 527 395 euro","swedish supreme court betsson refund","33 § avtalslagen spel"],"docket":"T 607-24 (HD 2025-07-01); PMÖD PMT 4156-21 (2023-12-21); PMD PMT 2625-19 (2021-03-08)","filed":"","claims":["33 § avtalslagen (invalidity where enforcement would be contrary to good faith and honour)"],"status_date":"2025-07-01","parties":{"plaintiffs":"P.L., Swedish customer (gambled 2009-2014, VIP from January 2012, self-excluded October 2014)","defendants":["BML Group Ltd (Betsson, Malta)"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":""},"money":{"fund":0,"currency":"EUR","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"EUR 527,395 (about SEK 5.9M)","fine_or_damages":"repayment of net losses EUR 527,395 plus legal costs SEK 718,750; SEK 10,000 award for psychological harm overturned"},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://www.domstol.se/globalassets/filer/domstol/hogstadomstolen/avgoranden/engelska-oversattningar/t-607-24-eng.pdf","https://domstol.se/globalassets/filer/domstol/patentochmarknadsoverdomstolen/avgoranden/2023/pmt-4156-21.pdf","https://www.domstol.se/en/supreme-court/precedents-archive/case-t-607-24"],"regulator":"","press":["https://cms.law/en/swe/legal-updates/contract-for-gambling-services-found-void-by-the-swedish-supreme-court-in-swedish-landmark-gambling-case","https://next.io/news/regulation/supreme-court-orders-betsson-repay-problem-gambler/"]},"significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-SE-0031"],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"id":"GL-SE-0030","slug":"bml-group-betsson-v-player-hd-t-607-24","title":"BML Group Ltd (Betsson) mot P.L., Högsta domstolen T 607-24","short_name":"Swedish Supreme Court: Betsson must repay EUR 527,395 to problem gambler","jurisdiction":{"country":"SE","state":"","court":"Högsta domstolen","level":"supreme"},"category":"addiction-duty-of-care","case_type":"individual","status":"judgment","summary":"A customer who wagered nearly EUR 15 million and had an aggregate net loss of nearly SEK 8 million sued Betsson for nearly EUR 16 million. The Patent and Market Court dismissed the action (PMT 2625-19, 8 March 2021); the Patent and Market Court of Appeal (PMT 4156-21, 21 December 2023) found the agreements invalid under 33 § avtalslagen and ordered repayment of EUR 527,395, the net loss during the VIP period, plus SEK 10,000 for personal injury. On 1 July 2025 the Supreme Court affirmed except for the SEK 10,000 damages: an operator whose automated systems collect behavioural data is deemed to know what that data shows; Betsson knew of the serious gambling problem from the VIP upgrade in January 2012 and its intrusive marketing made relying on the agreements contrary to good faith. BML Group pays P.L.'s Supreme Court costs of SEK 718,750.","sources":[{"claim":"HD T 607-24, 1 July 2025, holding, amounts, lower courts","url":"https://cms.law/en/swe/legal-updates/contract-for-gambling-services-found-void-by-the-swedish-supreme-court-in-swedish-landmark-gambling-case","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"EUR 527,395, costs SEK 718,750, dates of play","url":"https://next.io/news/regulation/supreme-court-orders-betsson-repay-problem-gambler/","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"HD T 607-24, 1 July 2025 (English translation): PMÖD judgment 2023-12-21 in PMT 4156-21 affirmed except damages; costs SEK 718,750; wagers nearly EUR 15M, net loss nearly SEK 8M","url":"https://www.domstol.se/globalassets/filer/domstol/hogstadomstolen/avgoranden/engelska-oversattningar/t-607-24-eng.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"PMÖD PMT 4156-21, 21 Dec 2023: PMD judgment 2021-03-08 in PMT 2625-19 reversed; BML Group to pay EUR 527,395","url":"https://domstol.se/globalassets/filer/domstol/patentochmarknadsoverdomstolen/avgoranden/2023/pmt-4156-21.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"Supreme Court news release","url":"https://www.domstol.se/en/supreme-court/news-archive/a-gambling-company-must-refund-just-over-500000-euros-to-a-player-with-serious-gambling-problems/","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"HD T 607-24, 1 July 2025: PMÖD judgment 2023-12-21 PMT 4156-21 affirmed except SEK 10,000 damages; costs SEK 718,750 (468,750 counsel); PMD dismissed the action; EUR 527,395 net loss after VIP status","url":"https://www.domstol.se/globalassets/filer/domstol/hogstadomstolen/avgoranden/engelska-oversattningar/t-607-24-eng.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"PMÖD PMT 4156-21 (2023-12-21) on appeal from PMD dom 2021-03-08 mål PMT 2625-19","url":"https://domstol.se/globalassets/filer/domstol/patentochmarknadsoverdomstolen/avgoranden/2023/pmt-4156-21.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/addiction-duty-of-care/bml-group-betsson-v-player-hd-t-607-24/"},{"id":"GL-SG-0003","slug":"star-entertainment-qld-v-yong-khong-yoong-mark-2021-sghc-280","title":"The Star Entertainment QLD Ltd v Yong Khong Yoong Mark [2021] SGHC 280","short_name":"Star Gold Coast A$3.9m debt registered in Singapore","aliases":["star entertainment v yong khong yoong mark","star gold coast gambling debt singapore","recja gambling debt registration"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"SG","state":"","court":"General Division of the High Court","level":"first-instance"},"docket":"OS 221/2021 (RA 276/2021); [2021] SGHC 280","filed":"2021","category":"refund-claims","case_type":"individual","parties":{"plaintiffs":"The Star Entertainment QLD Ltd (The Star Gold Coast)","defendants":["Yong Khong Yoong Mark (patron)"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"Pang Khang Chau J"},"claims":["registration under RECJA of a Supreme Court of Queensland default judgment of 25 September 2020 for A$3,883,058.28 under a cheque cashing facility","setting aside under RECJA s 3(2)(f) with Civil Law Act s 5(2)"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2021-12-03","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"AUD","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":"A$3,883,058.28 judgment debt remains registered"},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2021_SGHC_280","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":[],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"The patron argued that a Queensland judgment for casino cheque-cashing debts could not be registered because Singapore law voids gaming debts. Pang Khang Chau J held on 1 November 2021 that he was bound by Burswood Nominees and that the Court of Appeal's criticism in Poh Soon Kiat was obiter, so registration stood. One of a line of Australian casino collection cases that keep the Burswood rule alive pending a Court of Appeal review.","significance":"routine","related_cases":["GL-SG-0001","GL-SG-0002","GL-SG-0004"],"sources":[{"claim":"OS 221/2021, decision 1 November 2021, A$3,883,058.28, appeal dismissed; grounds of decision dated 3 December 2021 (version 03 Dec 2021); 1 November 2021 was the hearing date; registration of the A$3,883,058.28 Queensland judgment upheld, appeal dismissed; OS 221/2021, RA 276/2021, Pang Khang Chau J, A$3,883,058.28 incl. A$72,053.14 interest and A$4,228.30 costs, appeal dismissed","url":"https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2021_SGHC_280","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/refund-claims/star-entertainment-qld-v-yong-khong-yoong-mark-2021-sghc-280/"},{"id":"GL-SG-0008","slug":"zhou-haiming-v-public-prosecutor-casino-chip-theft-2017-sghc-40","title":"Zhou Haiming v Public Prosecutor and other appeals [2017] SGHC 40","short_name":"Casino chip theft ring at MBS and RWS: sentences raised","aliases":["zhou haiming v pp","casino chip theft singapore sentence","double sided tape chips marina bay sands"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"SG","state":"","court":"High Court of Singapore (Magistrate's Appeals)","level":"appeal"},"docket":"MA 9093/2016/01-02 and 9094/2016/01-02; [2017] SGHC 40","filed":"2015","category":"premises-patron","case_type":"criminal","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Public Prosecutor","defendants":["Zhou Haiming","Luo Jianguo (PRC nationals)"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"See Kee Oon J"},"claims":["conspiracy to steal casino chips (Penal Code s 379 read with s 120B): 284 thefts worth S$100,225 from over 60 patrons at Marina Bay Sands and Resorts World Sentosa, 21 September to 12 October 2015","removing criminal proceeds from Singapore, CDSA s 47(1)(b)"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2017-03-01","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"SGD","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":"imprisonment increased from 18 to 24 months each; S$100,225 stolen"},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2017_SGHC_40","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":[],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"Two Chinese nationals stole chips from gaming tables with tape on their palms, left Singapore and returned to do it again. On 1 March 2017 See Kee Oon J allowed the prosecution's appeal in part and raised each sentence to 24 months, while holding that not every casino-related crime demands a deterrent sentence. A representative patron-crime precedent for Singapore's two integrated resorts.","significance":"routine","related_cases":["GL-SG-0007"],"sources":[{"claim":"decision 1 March 2017, facts, sentences raised to 24 months; MA 9093/2016/01-02 and 9094/2016/01-02, 1 March 2017, See Kee Oon J, 18 to 24 months each, S$100,225 stolen","url":"https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2017_SGHC_40","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/premises-patron/zhou-haiming-v-public-prosecutor-casino-chip-theft-2017-sghc-40/"},{"id":"GL-SG-0009","slug":"public-prosecutor-v-teo-choon-chai-casino-entry-levy-2015-sghc-212","title":"Public Prosecutor v Teo Choon Chai [2015] SGHC 212","short_name":"Casino entry levy paid under a friend's identity","aliases":["pp v teo choon chai","casino entry levy false identity singapore","casino control act s 116 s 175a"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"SG","state":"","court":"High Court of Singapore (Magistrate's Appeal)","level":"appeal"},"docket":"MA 181/2014; [2015] SGHC 212","filed":"2013","category":"regulator-court","case_type":"criminal","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Public Prosecutor","defendants":["Teo Choon Chai (Singaporean patron)"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"See Kee Oon JC"},"claims":["entering Marina Bay Sands casino on false pretences using a friend's NRIC, Casino Control Act s 175A (pleaded guilty)","entering without paying the S$100 entry levy, s 116(6) and s 116(6A) (acquitted)"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2015-08-14","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"SGD","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2015_SGHC_212","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":[],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"A Singaporean paid the S$100 casino entry levy three times in August 2013 under a friend's name. The High Court held on 14 August 2015 that paying the levy under another identity is not 'not paying', so the s 116(6) acquittals stood and the conduct is punished only under s 175A. The case explains how Singapore's social-safeguard levy for residents is enforced in court.","significance":"routine","related_cases":[],"sources":[{"claim":"MA 181/2014, decision 14 August 2015, holding and outcome; MA 181/2014, 14 August 2015, See Kee Oon JC, prosecution appeal dismissed; S$100 levy paid under a friend's identity on three occasions in August 2013 plus one attempt in September 2013; s 175A convictions, s 116(6)/(6A) acquittals stand","url":"https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2015_SGHC_212","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/regulator-court/public-prosecutor-v-teo-choon-chai-casino-entry-levy-2015-sghc-212/"},{"id":"GL-SG-0005","slug":"marina-bay-sands-v-ong-boon-lin-lester-2013-sghc-163","title":"Marina Bay Sands Pte Ltd v Ong Boon Lin Lester [2013] SGHC 163 (and [2011] SGHC 73)","short_name":"Marina Bay Sands first casino credit trial","aliases":["marina bay sands v ong boon lin lester","mbs casino credit lawsuit","premium player credit singapore casino control act s 108"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"SG","state":"","court":"High Court of Singapore","level":"first-instance"},"docket":"Suit 792/2010; [2011] SGHC 73 (summary judgment); [2013] SGHC 163 (trial)","filed":"2010","category":"premises-patron","case_type":"individual","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Marina Bay Sands Pte Ltd","defendants":["Ong Boon Lin Lester (patron)"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"Lai Siu Chiu J (trial); Shaun Leong AR (summary judgment)"},"claims":["recovery of S$240,868 casino credit (S$250,000 chips less rolling commission) plus 12% default interest","defence: not a 'premium player' under Casino Control Act s 108 and the Casino Control (Credit) Regulations, so credit void under Civil Law Act s 5; unsolicited credit"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2013-08-26","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"SGD","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":"judgment for S$240,868 plus 12% p.a. interest from 15 August 2010 and costs"},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2013_SGHC_163","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/gd/2011_SGHC_73/pdf"],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"Singapore's first casino debt trial: the patron deposited S$100,000 on 1 May 2010, took S$250,000 in chips on credit and did not repay. Lai Siu Chiu J held on 26 August 2013 that he was a premium player for one year from the deposit, that the casino followed the CRA-approved credit controls, and that credit permitted by s 108 is exempt from the Civil Law Act voidness rule under s 40, so the debt is enforceable. The case sets the test Singapore casinos use to collect from local high rollers.","significance":"first-of-kind","related_cases":["GL-SG-0006"],"sources":[{"claim":"trial judgment 26 August 2013, S$240,868, premium player and s 108 holdings; Suit 792/2010, Lai Siu Chiu J, 26 August 2013: S$240,868 plus 12% p.a. from 15 August 2010 and costs; summary-judgment stage [2011] SGHC 73, Shaun Leong AR, 30 March 2011, conditional leave to defend","url":"https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2013_SGHC_163","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"summary judgment stage 30 March 2011, conditional leave to defend, premium player status lasts one year","url":"https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2011_SGHC_73","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/premises-patron/marina-bay-sands-v-ong-boon-lin-lester-2013-sghc-163/"},{"id":"GL-SG-0001","slug":"liao-eng-kiat-v-burswood-nominees-2004-sgca-45","title":"Liao Eng Kiat v Burswood Nominees Ltd [2004] SGCA 45","short_name":"Burswood casino debt judgment registered in Singapore","aliases":["burswood nominees singapore gambling debt","liao eng kiat v burswood","foreign casino debt enforceable singapore"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"SG","state":"","court":"Court of Appeal of Singapore","level":"supreme"},"docket":"CA 6/2004; [2004] SGCA 45; [2004] 4 SLR(R) 690","filed":"2003-08","category":"refund-claims","case_type":"appeal","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Burswood Nominees Ltd (operator of Burswood casino, Perth)","defendants":["Liao Eng Kiat (patron)"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"Yong Pung How CJ, Chao Hick Tin JA, Belinda Ang Saw Ean J"},"claims":["registration of a Western Australian default judgment (A$78,331.50 plus costs) under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgments Act","objection under RECJA s 3(2)(f) read with Civil Law Act s 5(2) (gaming contracts void)"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2004-10-05","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"AUD","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":"A$78,331.50 plus costs (default judgment registered)"},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2004_SGCA_45","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":[],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"A Singapore patron's S$52,900 cheque for Burswood casino chips bounced; the casino obtained a Western Australian default judgment in 2001 and registered it in Singapore in 2003. The Court of Appeal held on 5 October 2004 that although s 5(2) of the Civil Law Act would bar a direct action on the gambling debt, the RECJA applies a higher international public-policy threshold, which enforcing a licensed casino's judgment does not offend. The ruling made Singapore a venue for foreign casinos to collect debts, until the Court of Appeal called it 'unsound' in Poh Soon Kiat (2009).","significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-SG-0002","GL-SG-0003","GL-SG-0004"],"sources":[{"claim":"CA 6/2004, 5 October 2004, facts, holding and dismissal of appeal; CA 6/2004, 5 October 2004, Yong Pung How CJ, Chao Hick Tin JA, Belinda Ang J; A$78,331.50 plus A$2,765.28 costs; WA default judgment 13 December 2001; registered August 2003; appeal dismissed","url":"https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2004_SGCA_45","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/refund-claims/liao-eng-kiat-v-burswood-nominees-2004-sgca-45/"},{"id":"GL-US-0225","slug":"new-york-attorney-general-vgw-assurance-of-discontinuance","title":"In the Matter of VGW Holdings Pty. Ltd. (New York Attorney General Assurance of Discontinuance No. 26-052)","short_name":"New York AG v. VGW: USD 8M settlement and Sweeps Coin redemption until 2027-08-31","aliases":["vgw new york settlement","chumba casino new york settlement","vgw 8 million new york","chumba sweeps coins redemption new york","global poker new york settlement"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"US","state":"NY","court":"Office of the New York Attorney General (Assurance of Discontinuance under Executive Law 63(15); no court filing)","level":"regulatory-court"},"docket":"AOD No. 26-052","filed":"2026-08-31","category":"sweepstakes-casino","case_type":"ag-v-operator","parties":{"plaintiffs":"People of the State of New York, Attorney General Letitia James (Bureau of Internet and Technology)","defendants":["VGW Holdings Pty. Ltd. (f/k/a VGW Holdings Ltd.)","VGW Luckyland Inc.","VGW Malta Limited","VGW GP Limited"],"class_counsel":["Office of the New York Attorney General (Marc Montgomery, Jordan Adler, Kim A. Berger, Clark P. Russell)"],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":""},"claims":["New York law prohibiting online gambling that risks something of value, including redeemable virtual coins (Penal Law art. 225 as referenced in the OAG findings)","Executive Law 63(12) (persistent illegality) as the AG's enforcement basis"],"status":"claims-open","status_date":"2026-09-09","money":{"fund":8000000,"currency":"USD","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"no cash distribution to players from the USD 8M; eligible players are paid the cash value of Sweeps Coins held on 2025-06-02 at the exchange rate in VGW's sweepstakes rules (about USD 1 per Sweeps Coin)","payout_formula":"USD 8,000,000 paid to New York State for disgorgement, penalties and costs within 14 days of 2026-08-31 (no split published); separately VGW must honour redemption requests for Sweeps Coins in New York accounts as of 2025-06-02 from residents who did not receive the 2025 phase-out notice, paid in cash at the then-current sweepstakes rules rate, until 2027-08-31","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":"8000000"},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"2027-08-31","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/settlements-agreements/vgw-holdings-pty-ltd-aod-2026.pdf"],"regulator":"https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2026/attorney-general-james-secures-8-million-leading-operator-illegal-online","press":["https://openclassactions.com/news/vgw-chumba-sweeps-coins-new-york-redemption-settlement.php","https://www.sweepsy.com/news/vgw-settlement-new-york-8-million/"]},"summary":"The Attorney General's Bureau of Internet & Technology found that VGW sold 'free' Sweeps Coins at about one coin per dollar to New Yorkers through Chumba Casino, Global Poker and LuckyLand Slots. After an NYAG letter of 2025-04-25 (the press release calls it a June 2025 cease-and-desist), VGW stopped offering Sweeps Coins to New York residents on 2025-06-02. Under Assurance No. 26-052, effective 2026-08-31, VGW Holdings Pty. Ltd., VGW Luckyland Inc., VGW Malta Limited and VGW GP Limited agreed, without admitting or denying, to pay USD 8 million in disgorgement, restitution, penalties and costs within 14 days and, for one year, to redeem in cash the Sweeps Coins that New Yorkers who missed the 2025 phase-out notice held on 2025-06-02. It is the largest state recovery from a sweepstakes operator so far; it is an administrative settlement, not a court judgment, and requests go to VGW.","significance":"largest-settlement","related_cases":["GL-US-0210","GL-US-0221"],"sources":[{"claim":"USD 8M disgorgement, penalties and costs; platforms; June 2025 cease-and-desist; one coin per dollar finding; tens of thousands lost; officials; announcement 2026-09-09","url":"https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2026/attorney-general-james-secures-8-million-leading-operator-illegal-online","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"AOD No. 26-052, effective 2026-08-31, payment within 14 days, paragraph 18 redemption obligation (coins held 2025-06-02, residents without 2025 notice, cash at sweepstakes-rules rate), request window to 2027-08-31, no admission, VGW handles requests","url":"https://openclassactions.com/news/vgw-chumba-sweeps-coins-new-york-redemption-settlement.php","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"permanent bar on cash-redeemable coins for New York residents; Gold Coin play continues; December 2025 statutory ban","url":"https://www.sweepsy.com/news/vgw-settlement-new-york-8-million/","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"Assurance of Discontinuance No. 26-052 (Bureau of Internet & Technology): findings paras. 1-10 (Chumba in New York since 2012, Global Poker 2016, LuckyLand 2018; USD 5 buys 5.05 sweeps coins; NYAG letter of 2025-04-25; VGW stopped sweeps coins for New York residents 2025-06-02 with a phase-out deadline of 2025-08-01); para. 18 redemption requests for one year after the effective date for consumers who did not receive the phase-out notice, paid in fiat at the then-applicable sweepstakes-rules rate for coins held on 2025-06-02; para. 19 USD 8,000,000 disgorgement, restitution, penalties and costs within 14 days; para. 39 effective date 2026-08-31","url":"https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/settlements-agreements/vgw-holdings-pty-ltd-aod-2026.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"open":["the 2027-08-31 redemption deadline is derived from para. 18 (one year after the 2026-08-31 effective date); the AOD names no request form or administrator","no published redemption request form located as of October 2026","border question for the orchestrator: an AOD is not a court proceeding, but it carries a consumer claims deadline"],"status_read_from_records":true,"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/sweepstakes-casino/new-york-attorney-general-vgw-assurance-of-discontinuance/"},{"id":"GL-US-0612","slug":"kalshi-v-ellison-minnesota","title":"KalshiEX LLC v. Ellison (with United States v. Minnesota and QCX LLC v. Ellison)","short_name":"Kalshi v. Minnesota prediction-market ban","aliases":["kalshi minnesota lawsuit","minnesota prediction market ban","is kalshi legal in minnesota"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"US","state":"MN","court":"U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota","level":"first-instance"},"docket":"0:26-cv-02778-KMM-DTS (D. Minn.); heard with 0:26-cv-02661 and 0:26-cv-02841","filed":"2026-05-27","category":"prediction-markets","case_type":"operator-v-regulator","parties":{"plaintiffs":"KalshiEX LLC","defendants":["Keith Ellison, Minnesota Attorney General","State of Minnesota officials"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"Katherine Menendez (D. Minn.)"},"claims":["Commodity Exchange Act preemption (7 U.S.C. 2(a)(1)(A) exclusive jurisdiction over swaps on DCMs)","Supremacy Clause, U.S. Const. art. VI","Minn. Stat. 609.7615 (prediction-market felony statute, SF 3432/SF 4760) challenged"],"status":"appealed","status_date":"2026-07-27","money":{"fund":"","currency":"USD","attorney_fees":"","payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-mnd-0_26-cv-02661/pdf/USCOURTS-mnd-0_26-cv-02661-0.pdf"],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"Minnesota enacted the first state statute making it a felony to operate a prediction market (Minn. Stat. 609.7615, effective 1 August 2026). The CFTC sued on 19 May 2026, Kalshi on 27 May 2026 and Polymarket US on 4 June 2026. After argument on 2 July 2026, Judge Menendez granted all three preliminary injunctions on 27 July 2026, barring enforcement of the statute against CFTC-registered designated contract markets until final judgment, with the bond waived. Minnesota appealed (8th Cir. No. 26-2905). Kalshi remains available in Minnesota.","significance":"first-of-kind","related_cases":["GL-US-0649","GL-US-0673"],"sources":[{"claim":"PI granted 27 July 2026 in all three cases; statute and effective date; bond waived","url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-mnd-0_26-cv-02661/pdf/USCOURTS-mnd-0_26-cv-02661-0.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"filed 27 May 2026; argued 2 July 2026","url":"https://mickbransfield.com/2025/08/11/summary-of-legal-actions-involving-kalshis-sports-event-contracts/","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"8th Cir. 26-2905 pending","url":"https://www.foley.com/?p=130779","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"Order on plaintiffs' motions for preliminary injunction, Doc. 76, filed 27 Jul 2026 (Judge Menendez), covering 0:26-cv-02661, 02778 and 02841: motions granted, enforcement of Minn. Stat. 609.7615 against the plaintiffs enjoined pending final judgment","url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-mnd-0_26-cv-02661/pdf/USCOURTS-mnd-0_26-cv-02661-0.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"open":[],"status_read_from_records":true,"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/prediction-markets/kalshi-v-ellison-minnesota/"},{"id":"GL-US-0645","slug":"cftc-v-illinois","title":"United States and CFTC v. State of Illinois (Pritzker, Raoul, Illinois Gaming Board)","short_name":"CFTC v. Illinois","aliases":["cftc sues illinois","cftc v illinois prediction markets"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"US","state":"IL","court":"U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois; Seventh Circuit (No. 26-3266)","level":"first-instance"},"docket":"1:26-cv-03659 (N.D. Ill.); 26-3266 (7th Cir.)","filed":"2026-04-02","category":"prediction-markets","case_type":"constitutional","parties":{"plaintiffs":"United States of America and Commodity Futures Trading Commission","defendants":["State of Illinois","Governor JB Pritzker","Attorney General Kwame Raoul","Illinois Gaming Board"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"Martha M. Pacold"},"claims":["Supremacy Clause preemption (CEA 7 U.S.C. 2(a)(1)(A))","declaratory and injunctive relief"],"status":"appealed","status_date":"2026-11-02","money":{"fund":"","currency":"USD","attorney_fees":"","payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":[],"regulator":"https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9206-26","press":[]},"summary":"Filed 2 April 2026 after the Illinois Gaming Board's cease-and-desist letters to Kalshi, Crypto.com and Polymarket. Heard with Coinbase v. Raoul and Kalshi v. Raoul; Judge Pacold ruled for the CFTC and the operators on 2 October 2026 and entered a preliminary injunction (30 October 2026) against enforcing Illinois gambling laws on sports event contracts, leaving the SB 3019 fee open. Illinois appealed (26-3266).","significance":"first-of-kind","related_cases":["GL-US-0614","GL-US-0671"],"sources":[{"claim":"filed 2 Apr 2026; ruling 2 Sept 2026; PI 2 Nov 2026; appeal 26-3266","url":"https://mickbransfield.com/2025/08/11/summary-of-legal-actions-involving-kalshis-sports-event-contracts/","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"Illinois complaint: Supremacy Clause finding and permanent injunction sought","url":"https://www.theblock.co/post/396258/cftc-sues-illinois-gov-pritzker-escalating-fight-jurisdiction-prediction-markets","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"Memorandum Opinion and Order of 2 Oct 2026 (Dkt. 99 in 1:26-cv-03659): motions of Coinbase, the United States/intervenors and Kalshi granted in part and continued in part; contracts likely swaps, some Illinois law likely preempted","url":"https://www.sportsbettingdime.com/app/uploads/2026/10/gov.uscourts.ilnd_.498112.99.0.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary","note":"PACER copy hosted by press; govinfo returned 500"},{"claim":"Preliminary Injunction dated 30 Oct 2026 (Dkt. 64 in 1:26-cv-07363, all three cases): defendants enjoined from enforcing 230 ILCS 45/art. 25, 720 ILCS 5/28-1(a), 230 ILCS 10/18(a)(1) and 11 Ill. Admin. Code 1900.1210(a) as to swaps incl. sports event contracts on CFTC-regulated DCMs and FCMs, including licensing requirements, associated fees, taxes and criminal provisions","url":"https://www.sportsbettingdime.com/app/uploads/2026/11/gov.uscourts.ilnd_.502930.64.0.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary","note":"PACER copy hosted by press; govinfo returned 500"},{"claim":"state noticed appeals 30 Oct 2026 (Coinbase) and 2 Nov 2026 (Kalshi); both PI orders on appeal to the Seventh Circuit","url":"https://www.foley.com/?p=130779","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"complaint as filed: 1:26-cv-03659 Document 1 filed 04/02/26, N.D. Ill.","url":"https://www.cftc.gov/media/13621/EnfJBPritzkerComplaint040226/download","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"open":[],"status_read_from_records":true,"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/prediction-markets/cftc-v-illinois/"},{"id":"GL-US-1003","slug":"new-york-v-valve-loot-boxes","title":"People of the State of New York, by Letitia James, Attorney General v. Valve Corporation","short_name":"New York Attorney General v. Valve (CS2 loot boxes)","aliases":["valve lawsuit new york","letitia james valve","cs2 loot box lawsuit","counter-strike gambling lawsuit","steam gambling lawsuit"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"US","state":"NY","court":"Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County","level":"first-instance"},"docket":"450952/2026","filed":"2026-02-25","category":"loot-boxes","case_type":"ag-v-operator","parties":{"plaintiffs":"People of the State of New York by Attorney General Letitia James (Bureau of Internet and Technology)","defendants":["Valve Corporation"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"Nancy M. Bannon (reported)"},"claims":["Executive Law 63(12)","New York Constitution Article I, Section 9 (gambling prohibition)","Penal Law 225.05 promoting gambling in the second degree","Penal Law 225.10 promoting gambling in the first degree"],"status":"motion-to-dismiss","status_date":"2026-05-18","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"USD","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"relief sought: accounting of New Yorkers' losses, full restitution and damages, disgorgement, and a fine of three times Valve's gain; no sum stated; complaint says Valve made tens of millions of dollars selling keys to thousands of New York residents","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/court-filings/new-york-v-valve-corporation-complaint-2026.pdf","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":[],"regulator":"https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2026/attorney-general-james-sues-game-developer-promoting-illegal-gambling-through","press":["https://valawyersweekly.com/2026/02/25/new-york-sues-valve-loot-box-gambling/","https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/new-york-ag-letitia-james-sues-valve-loot-boxes-gambling"]},"summary":"First state lawsuit against a game publisher over loot boxes. The Attorney General alleges that Counter-Strike 2, Dota 2 and Team Fortress 2 cases opened with paid keys are 'quintessential gambling' because the randomised items can be sold for cash (the CS2 skin market exceeded USD 4.3 billion in March 2025 and one skin sold for USD 1 million in June 2024), that the opening animation resembles a slot machine, and that Valve sets the odds and profits from resale commissions. Tolling agreements ran from 5 April 2023 to 6 February 2026. Valve filed a 42-page motion to dismiss on 18 May 2026 arguing that every player receives exactly one skin per box so there is no stake or risk, comparing cases to baseball cards; the Attorney General opposed. Press reports place the motion before Justice Nancy Bannon with oral argument adjourned to 26 January 2027; no ruling found.","significance":"pending-landmark","related_cases":["GL-US-1004","GL-US-1005","GL-US-1006"],"sources":[{"claim":"index number 450952/2026, filed 25 February 2026, three causes of action under Executive Law 63(12), prayer for relief including treble fine, tolling agreements, New York revenue allegations","url":"https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/court-filings/new-york-v-valve-corporation-complaint-2026.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"press release 25 February 2026: games, allegations, USD 4.3 billion skin market, USD 1 million skin, relief","url":"https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2026/attorney-general-james-sues-game-developer-promoting-illegal-gambling-through","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"Valve's motion to dismiss filed 18 May 2026 in New York County Supreme Court before Justice Nancy Bannon; baseball-card comparison; dismissal with prejudice sought","url":"https://www.ghacks.net/2026/05/21/valve-files-motion-to-dismiss-new-york-counter-strike-loot-box-lawsuit-compares-item-cases-to-baseball-cards/","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"Attorney General's opposition filed; oral argument reported adjourned to 26 January 2027","url":"https://tech-insider.org/valve-loot-box-gambling-lawsuit-new-york-2026/","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"}],"status_read_from_records":false,"open":["motion to dismiss date (18 May 2026), assigned justice (Nancy Bannon) and the 26 January 2027 argument date come from press; NYSCEF docket not retrieved","no decision on the motion found as of 14 November 2026"],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/loot-boxes/new-york-v-valve-loot-boxes/"},{"id":"GL-US-0800","slug":"circle-k-v-gawlitza-arizona-lottery-ticket","title":"Circle K Stores v. Gawlitza and Arizona Lottery","short_name":"Circle K lottery ticket lawsuit","aliases":["circle k lottery ticket lawsuit","arizona lottery ticket lawsuit","circle k 12.8 million lottery ticket","the pick jackpot dispute scottsdale"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"US","state":"AZ","court":"Maricopa County Superior Court","level":"first-instance"},"docket":"","filed":"2026-02-17","category":"lottery","case_type":"individual","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Circle K Stores Inc. (retailer), seeking a declaration of ownership","defendants":["Robert Gawlitza (former store manager)","Marline Ybarra (former coworker, co-claimant on the counterclaims)","Arizona Lottery (nominal party)","Jane/John Doe (the customer who left the tickets, named as a possible claimant)"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"Joseph Kreamer"},"claims":["Declaratory judgment on ownership of an overprinted lottery ticket (Arizona Lottery rule on unsold tickets)","Counterclaims: wrongful termination and others"],"status":"filed","status_date":"2026-11-06","money":{"fund":"","currency":"USD","attorney_fees":"","payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":"12800000 prize held by Arizona Lottery"},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":"2026-12-15"},"links":{"docket":"","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":[],"regulator":"","press":["https://www.kold.com/2026/11/06/court-hear-circle-k-ex-scottsdale-managers-128m-lottery-ticket-fight/","https://www.nbcpalmsprings.com/ca-us-and-world/2026/11/07/judge-allows-legal-fight-over-128-million-arizona-lottery-ticket-to-continue","https://www.abc15.com/news/region-phoenix-metro/north-phoenix/legal-fight-between-circle-k-and-employee-over-12-8-million-lottery-ticket"]},"summary":"A clerk at a Scottsdale Circle K printed $85 of The Pick tickets for a customer who paid for $60; the 25 leftover tickets were set aside and store manager Robert Gawlitza later paid for them. One matched all six numbers of the 24 November 2025 drawing ($12.8 million). Circle K fired him on 30 January 2026 and sued on 17 February 2026 asking the court to decide ownership, relying on the Arizona Lottery rule that overprinted unsold tickets belong to the retailer; Gawlitza says he bought them under an unofficial store policy and counterclaimed for wrongful termination. The court delayed the prize-claim expiry (originally 23 May 2026) and on 6 November 2026 let seven counterclaims proceed while staying six until ownership is decided. The Lottery holds the prize.","significance":"pending-landmark","related_cases":["GL-US-0801","GL-US-0802","GL-US-0810","GL-US-0811"],"sources":[{"retrieved":"2026-11-14","claim":"filed 17 Feb 2026, parties, Lottery nominal party, counterclaims","url":"https://www.abc15.com/news/region-phoenix-metro/north-phoenix/legal-fight-between-circle-k-and-employee-over-12-8-million-lottery-ticket"},{"retrieved":"2026-11-14","claim":"6 Nov 2026 hearing, Judge Kreamer, seven counterclaims proceed, six paused","url":"https://www.nbcpalmsprings.com/ca-us-and-world/2026/11/07/judge-allows-legal-fight-over-128-million-arizona-lottery-ticket-to-continue"},{"retrieved":"2026-11-14","claim":"prize $12.8M, drawing 24 Nov 2025, deadline extension","url":"https://www.kold.com/2026/05/15/judge-delays-deadline-128m-arizona-lottery-ticket-dispute/"},{"claim":"6 Nov 2026: seven counterclaims by Gawlitza and coworker Marline Ybarra survive, six stayed; customer also claims ownership; briefs due 4 Dec 2026, hearing 15 Dec 2026 on jury vs bench","url":"https://www.lotteryusa.com/news/arizonas-12-8m-lottery-showdown-moves-forward-narrower-focus","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"hearing 15 Dec 2026 on whether judge or jury decides ownership; briefs due 4 Dec 2026","url":"https://www.lotteryusa.com/news/arizonas-12-8m-lottery-showdown-moves-forward-narrower-focus","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"}],"open":["Maricopa County case number not found in press; pull from the court e-access portal","Only press sources so far; no court order fetched","Co-claimants per press: coworker Marline Ybarra (joined counterclaims) and the original customer (Jane/John Doe); 180-day deadline extension of 15 May 2026 implies about 19 Nov 2026 (calculated, not stated); 15 Dec 2026 hearing on jury vs bench trial; still no court order fetched; Maricopa County CV number not found (eAccess not reachable)"],"status_read_from_records":false,"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/lottery/circle-k-v-gawlitza-arizona-lottery-ticket/"},{"id":"GL-US-0020","slug":"washington-v-playtika-aristocrat","title":"State of Washington v. Playtika Santa Monica, LLC et al. (Playtika and Aristocrat casino apps)","short_name":"Washington AG v. Playtika and Aristocrat","aliases":["washington attorney general playtika lawsuit","washington sues social casino apps","bingo blitz lawsuit","aristocrat big fish washington ag"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"US","state":"WA","court":"King County Superior Court","level":"first-instance"},"docket":"26-2-04647-6 SEA","filed":"2026-02-03","category":"social-casino","case_type":"ag-v-operator","parties":{"plaintiffs":"State of Washington, Attorney General Nicholas W. Brown (Alison E. Cordova, R. July Simpson, Lucy Wolf, Molly Powell)","defendants":["Playtika Santa Monica, LLC","Playtika Santa Monica Holdings, LLC","Playtika UK - House of Fun Limited","Playtika Ltd.","Playtika Holding Corp.","Product Madness Inc.","Big Fish Games, Inc.","Plarium LLC","Pixel United Holdings Limited","Aristocrat Technologies, Inc.","Aristocrat Leisure Limited"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":""},"claims":["Washington Gambling Act, RCW 9.46","RCW 4.24.070 Recovery of Money Lost at Gambling Act (parens patriae)","RCW 19.86 Consumer Protection Act, civil penalties under RCW 19.86.140"],"status":"motion-to-dismiss","status_date":"2026-07-27","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"USD","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":"sought: recovery of all money lost (over USD 225 million spent since September 2020: Playtika USD 151 million, Aristocrat USD 74 million), restitution, disgorgement, USD 7,500 per CPA violation"},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":[],"regulator":"https://www.atg.wa.gov/news/news-releases/ag-s-office-sues-illegal-gambling-apps-have-taken-more-225-million","press":["https://agportal-s3bucket.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/Complex%20Litigation/Complaint.pdf","https://komonews.com/news/local/state-ag-seeks-to-end-social-casino-apps-despite-previous-gambling-guidance-washington-state-gambling-commission-playtika-bingo-blitz-big-fish-casino-currency","https://bettorsinsider.com/news/2026/07/27/washington-seeks-225-million-from-playtika-and-aristocrat-in-social-casino-app-lawsuit/"]},"summary":"First state enforcement action against social casino operators. Filed 3 February 2026 after a 24 June 2025 demand letter to Playtika, it targets 16 apps (Slotomania, House of Fun, Caesars Casino Slots, Vegas Downtown Slots, World Series of Poker, Poker Heat, Monopoly Poker, Governor of Poker 3, Bingo Blitz, Big Fish Casino, Jackpot Magic Slots, Lightning Link Casino, Cashman Casino, Heart of Vegas, Mighty Fu Casino, NFL Superbowl Slots Casino) used by 150,000 Washingtonians a month, alleges no age checks and child-directed Bingo Blitz marketing, and seeks shutdown, recovery of losses, restitution, disgorgement and penalties. Playtika moved to dismiss, relying on a 'continuous play' feature and the Gambling Commission's 2014 guidance; argument was set for August 2026. The AG estimates two to three years to resolution.","significance":"first-of-kind","related_cases":["GL-US-0001","GL-US-0006","GL-US-0010"],"sources":[{"claim":"complaint e-filed 3 Feb 2026 4:28 pm, King County Superior Court, Case # 26-2-04647-6 SEA; eleven defendants; RCW 9.46, RCW 4.24.070 (parens patriae), RCW 19.86; over 150,000 Washingtonians, over USD 225 million since Sept 2020 (Playtika USD 151 million, 8 million purchases; Aristocrat USD 74 million, 2.25 million purchases); prayer: USD 7,500 civil penalty per violation, restitution, disgorgement, injunction","url":"https://agportal-s3bucket.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/Complex%20Litigation/Complaint.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary","note":"complaint PDF hosted by the Attorney General"},{"claim":"16 apps, 150,000 monthly users, relief sought","url":"https://www.atg.wa.gov/news/news-releases/ag-s-office-sues-illegal-gambling-apps-have-taken-more-225-million","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"Playtika motion to dismiss, continuous play argument, argument set for August 2026, Gambling Commission 2014 and 2025 guidance","url":"https://komonews.com/news/local/state-ag-seeks-to-end-social-casino-apps-despite-previous-gambling-guidance-washington-state-gambling-commission-playtika-bingo-blitz-big-fish-casino-currency","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"AG letter to Playtika 24 June 2025; suit filed 3 Feb 2026","url":"https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1828016/000182801626000010/playtika-20251231.htm","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"AG letter of 24 June 2025; lawsuit filed 3 Feb 2026 in King County Superior Court against the company and several subsidiaries; preliminary stages","url":"https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1828016/000182801626000010/playtika-20251231.htm","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"open":["assigned judge","ruling on the motion to dismiss (argument August 2026)","Aristocrat's response","AG press release does not name the court or case number; both confirmed from the complaint stamp","status \"motion-to-dismiss\" and the August 2026 argument date rest on KOMO and Bettors Insider (July 2026); King County portal not checked"],"status_read_from_records":false,"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/social-casino/washington-v-playtika-aristocrat/"},{"id":"GL-US-0637","slug":"nevada-v-coinbase","title":"State of Nevada ex rel. Nevada Gaming Control Board v. Coinbase Financial Markets","short_name":"Nevada Gaming Control Board v. Coinbase","aliases":["coinbase nevada prediction markets lawsuit"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"US","state":"NV","court":"First Judicial District Court, Carson City","level":"first-instance"},"docket":"26 OC 00030 1B","filed":"2026-02-02","category":"prediction-markets","case_type":"regulator-v-operator","parties":{"plaintiffs":"State of Nevada ex rel. Nevada Gaming Control Board","defendants":["Coinbase Financial Markets, Inc."],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":""},"claims":["NRS 463.160, 463.350, 465.086, 465.092"],"status":"filed","status_date":"2026-03-26","money":{"fund":"","currency":"USD","attorney_fees":"","payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://www.gaming.nv.gov/siteassets/content/about/press-release/coinbase---order-granting-plaintiffs-motion-for-preliminary-injunction-3-26.pdf"],"regulator":"https://www.gaming.nv.gov/about-us/press-releases-public-statements/","press":[]},"summary":"Filed 2 February 2026; TRO 5 February 2026; preliminary injunction 26 March 2026 barring Coinbase from sports, election and entertainment event contracts in Nevada. Coinbase filed a federal countersuit (GL-US-0659).","significance":"routine","related_cases":["GL-US-0659","GL-US-0619"],"sources":[{"claim":"complaint 2 Feb 2026, TRO 5 Feb 2026, PI order 26 Mar 2026 (document list)","url":"https://www.gaming.nv.gov/about-us/press-releases-public-statements/","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"Coinbase prohibited by PI","url":"https://www.gaming.nv.gov/contentassets/b9f7b024bdbc4c8693d3a511ea5d9841/nevada-gaming-control-board-provides-enforcement-litigation-update.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"order granting ex parte TRO 5 Feb 2026","url":"https://www.gaming.nv.gov/siteassets/content/about/press-release/coinbase---order-granting-plaintiffs-application-for-ex-parte-temporary-restraining-order.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"order granting preliminary injunction 26 Mar 2026","url":"https://www.gaming.nv.gov/siteassets/content/about/press-release/coinbase---order-granting-plaintiffs-motion-for-preliminary-injunction-3-26.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"open":[],"status_read_from_records":true,"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/prediction-markets/nevada-v-coinbase/"},{"id":"GL-US-1266","slug":"dapello-v-riverside-resort-casino-wisconsin-settlement","title":"Dapello, et al. v. Riverside Resort & Casino, Inc. and Riverside Resort & Casino, LLC","short_name":"Riverside Resort & Casino data breach settlement","aliases":["riverside resort casino data breach settlement","riverside casino laughlin data breach claim","riversidedatasettlement.com","dapello v riverside resort","riverside resort settlement claim deadline january 2027"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"US","state":"WI","court":"Circuit Court for Columbia County, Wisconsin","level":"first-instance"},"docket":"2026CV000097","filed":"2026","category":"data-breach","case_type":"class-action","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Robert Dapello, Brian Scott Giuiland, Carol Ann Laudonio, Gary Lester, Kathleen Maddox, Jean Markgraf, Darlene Martin, Michael J. Montoya, Floyd Patten, Amber McConnell and Ronald Hansen, on behalf of 'All persons residing in the United States who were sent Notification that their Private Information was compromised because of the Data Incident discovered by Riverside in or around July 2024' (about 55,155 current and former employees and customers per the federal pleadings)","defendants":["Riverside Resort & Casino, Inc.","Riverside Resort & Casino, LLC"],"class_counsel":["A. Brooke Murphy, Murphy Law Firm","Alex Phillips, Strauss Borrelli PLLC"],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":""},"claims":[],"status":"claims-open","status_date":"2026-10-05","money":{"fund":1000000,"currency":"USD","attorney_fees":500000,"payout_estimate":"USD 50 alternative cash payment (USD 75 for California residents) without documentation, or up to USD 3,000 documented losses including up to 3 hours lost time at USD 20/hour; plus one year CyEx Financial Shield Total credit monitoring for every class member","payout_formula":"Class member chooses either (a) documented out-of-pocket losses incurred 2024-07-25 to 2027-01-04 up to USD 3,000 (lost time 3 h x USD 20 = USD 60 max counts toward the cap) or (b) a one-time alternative cash payment expected at USD 50 (USD 75 California), no proof; all cash benefits are capped at USD 1,000,000 aggregate and reduced pro rata if valid claims exceed the cap; the USD 500,000 fees and costs and USD 2,000 x 11 service awards are paid by Riverside separately and do not reduce the cap","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"2027-01-04","exclusion_deadline":"2026-12-04","final_approval_hearing":"2027-01-27","payment_date":"","next_hearing":"2027-01-27"},"links":{"docket":"","administrator":"https://www.riversidedatasettlement.com/","claim_form":"https://www.riversidedatasettlement.com/form/claim","orders":["https://cw.simpluris.com/docs/public/downloads/RDC4/NOTICE_OF_CLASS_ACTION_SETTLEMENT","https://cw.simpluris.com/docs/public/downloads/RDC4/CLAIM_FORM"],"regulator":"","press":["https://settlementinsight.com/riverside-resort-and-casino-data-breach-settlement"]},"summary":"Riverside Resort & Casino in Laughlin, Nevada suffered a July 2024 ransomware attack (Lynx claimed it) exposing names, Social Security numbers, ID and financial account numbers, medical and insurance data and dates of birth of about 55,155 employees and customers. After federal class litigation in Nevada survived most of a motion to dismiss, the parties mediated and settled through a new case in the Circuit Court for Columbia County, Wisconsin (No. 2026CV000097): Riverside funds up to USD 1,000,000 in class benefits (documented losses up to USD 3,000 or a USD 50/USD 75 alternative payment, plus a year of credit monitoring) and pays up to USD 500,000 in fees and costs and USD 2,000 per class representative separately. Notices went out 2026-10-05; opt-outs and objections are due 2026-12-04, claims by 2027-01-04, and the final approval hearing is set for 2027-01-27 at 11:00 CT at the Columbia County Courthouse, 400 DeWitt Street, Portage, WI (administrator Simpluris, (833) 200-8003).","significance":"routine","related_cases":["GL-US-1267"],"sources":[{"claim":"Court-authorised long-form notice: case 2026CV000097, Columbia County Circuit Court; deadlines 2026-12-04 (opt out/object), 2027-01-04 (claims), final approval hearing 2027-01-27 11:00 am; class counsel Murphy and Phillips; USD 500,000 fees and costs; USD 2,000 service awards","url":"https://cw.simpluris.com/docs/public/downloads/RDC4/NOTICE_OF_CLASS_ACTION_SETTLEMENT","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"Administrator FAQ: class definition verbatim, benefits (USD 3,000 documented losses, 3 h x USD 20 lost time, USD 50/USD 75 alternative payment, CyEx Financial Shield Total), USD 1,000,000 aggregate cap with pro rata reduction, 11 class representatives, opt-out and objection addresses, hearing location","url":"https://www.riversidedatasettlement.com/faq/","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"Administrator home page: notices mailed 10/5/2026, Simpluris, phone (833) 200-8003, claim form links","url":"https://www.riversidedatasettlement.com/","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"Breach discovered 2024-07-25; 55,155 current and former employees and customers affected; Lynx ransomware","url":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nvd.170587/gov.uscourts.nvd.170587.31.0.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"Judge W. Andrew Voigt (Branch II); preliminary approval order 2026-09-04; breach date believed 2024-07-24; notices of breach began 2024-09-05","url":"https://settlementinsight.com/riverside-resort-and-casino-data-breach-settlement","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"}],"status_read_from_records":false,"open":["Causes of action in the Wisconsin complaint not read; the administrator's 'Important Documents' page loads by script and listed nothing.","Defense counsel in the Wisconsin case not identified (Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP represented Riverside in the Nevada federal case)."],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/data-breach/dapello-v-riverside-resort-casino-wisconsin-settlement/"},{"id":"GL-US-0688","slug":"in-re-kalshi-sports-prediction-market-litigation","title":"In re Kalshi Sports Prediction Market Litigation (Yee v. KalshiEX LLC; Pelayo v. Kalshi Inc.; Hallman v. KalshiEX LLC; Jennings; Reynolds; Roberts)","short_name":"Kalshi consolidated class action (S.D.N.Y.)","aliases":["kalshi class action lawsuit","kalshi class action","pelayo v kalshi","yee v kalshi","kalshi klear llc lawsuit","kalshi lawsuit payout"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"US","state":"NY","court":"U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York","level":"first-instance"},"docket":"1:25-cv-08585-JLR (lead); 1:25-cv-09913; 1:26-cv-00317; 1:26-cv-01924; 1:26-cv-04126; 1:26-cv-05238; 1:26-cv-05246; 1:26-cv-07572","filed":"2025-10-16","category":"prediction-markets","case_type":"class-action","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Daniel Yee, Crystal Pelayo, Alexander Hallman, Christopher Jennings, Ian Reynolds, Donovan Roberts and others, for a proposed nationwide class of Kalshi users with state subclasses","defendants":["Kalshi Inc.","KalshiEX LLC","Kalshi Klear Inc.","Kalshi Klear LLC","Kalshi Trading LLC","Susquehanna International Group, LLP","Susquehanna Government Products, LLLP"],"class_counsel":["Tycko & Zavareei LLP (Katherine M. Aizpuru) and Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP (David Stellings), proposed interim co-lead counsel per the 6 Feb 2026 stipulation"],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"Jennifer L. Rochon"},"claims":["state gambling-loss recovery statutes","N.Y. General Business Law 349-350","N.Y. General Obligations Law 5-411 et seq.","California Unfair Competition Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act","unjust enrichment","false advertising ('legal in all 50 states')"],"status":"motion-to-dismiss","status_date":"","money":{"fund":"","currency":"USD","attorney_fees":"","payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/New_York_Southern_District_Court/1--25-cv-08585/Yee_v._KalshiEX_LLC_et_al/","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":[],"regulator":"","press":["https://www.classaction.org/news/class-action-lawsuit-claims-kalshi-illegally-runs-online-sports-betting-platform"]},"summary":"Consumer class actions alleging Kalshi runs an unlicensed nationwide sportsbook, that its 'legal in all 50 states' advertising is false, and that its market-making affiliates (Kalshi Trading, Kalshi Klear) and Susquehanna bet against users. Yee (filed 16 Oct 2025), Pelayo (26 Nov 2025) and Hallman (13 Jan 2026) were consolidated under Judge Rochon on the parties' stipulation of 6 February 2026 (order date not retrieved); Jennings (M.D. Ala.) was transferred and consolidated 20 March 2026; Reynolds (D. Or.) and Roberts (W.D. Ky.) were transferred 22 June 2026. Kalshi said it would move to compel arbitration and to dismiss (stipulated schedule: motion by about 21 April 2026, replies by 11 June 2026). A further suit, Lee v. Kalshi (1:26-cv-07572, filed 3 Sept 2026), was related in. No class certified, no settlement, no payout; anyone offering a 'Kalshi settlement payout' is not describing this case.","significance":"pending-landmark","related_cases":["GL-US-0689","GL-US-0690","GL-US-0691"],"sources":[{"claim":"lead docket 1:25-cv-08585 filed 16 Oct 2025, caption In re Kalshi Sports Prediction Market Litigation, Judge Rochon, defendants","url":"https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/New_York_Southern_District_Court/1--25-cv-08585/Yee_v._KalshiEX_LLC_et_al/","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"Pelayo 1:25-cv-9913 filed 26 Nov 2025, class definition, claims","url":"https://www.classaction.org/news/class-action-lawsuit-claims-kalshi-illegally-runs-online-sports-betting-platform","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"consolidation 6 Feb 2026, Jennings 20 Mar 2026, transfers 22 June 2026, arbitration motion plan","url":"https://mickbransfield.com/2025/08/11/summary-of-legal-actions-involving-kalshis-sports-event-contracts/","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"[Proposed] Stipulation to Consolidate Actions and Set Scheduling Deadlines (Dkt. 35 in 25-cv-08585 dated 6 Feb 2026; cross-filed 9 Feb 2026): Yee, Pelayo and Hallman to be consolidated as In re Kalshi Sports Prediction Market Litigation; proposed interim co-lead counsel Tycko & Zavareei (Aizpuru) and Lieff Cabraser (Stellings); proposed consolidated complaint 24 Mar 2026, motion to compel arbitration 21 Apr 2026, reply 11 June 2026","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.651290/gov.uscourts.nysd.651290.36.0.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"Reynolds (1:26-cv-05238) accepted as related 30 June 2026; Roberts docketed 1:26-cv-05246; Lee v. Kalshi 1:26-cv-07572 filed 3 Sept 2026 (Magistrate Judge Willis designated 4 Sept 2026)","url":"https://www.foley.com/?p=130775","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"}],"open":["ruling on motion to compel arbitration / dismiss","whether the Susquehanna entities are defendants in the consolidated complaint (named in Reynolds and Roberts)","status 'motion-to-dismiss' rests on the stipulated schedule (motion to compel arbitration due 21 Apr 2026) and tracker reports; the docket after Feb 2026 (consolidation order, consolidated complaint, motion, any ruling) was not retrievable (CourtListener/Docket Alarm paywalled); status_date blanked"],"status_read_from_records":false,"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/prediction-markets/in-re-kalshi-sports-prediction-market-litigation/"},{"id":"GL-US-0826","slug":"blue-lake-rancheria-v-kalshi","title":"Blue Lake Rancheria et al. v. Kalshi, Inc.","short_name":"California tribes v. Kalshi and Robinhood","aliases":["blue lake rancheria v kalshi","tribes sue kalshi california","ninth circuit kalshi tribal lands ruling"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"US","state":"CA","court":"U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California; Ninth Circuit (No. 25-7504)","level":"appeal"},"docket":"3:25-cv-06162-JSC (N.D. Cal.); 25-7504 (9th Cir.)","filed":"2025-07-22","category":"prediction-markets","case_type":"tribe-v-operator","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Blue Lake Rancheria; Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians; Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi Indians (plaintiff in the district court; dismissed without prejudice from the Ninth Circuit appeal after oral argument by joint stipulation)","defendants":["Kalshi, Inc.","KalshiEX, LLC","Robinhood Markets, Inc.","Robinhood Derivatives, LLC"],"class_counsel":["Rapport and Marston, Ukiah (Lester J. Marston) for the tribes"],"defense_counsel":["Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP and Milbank LLP (Kalshi)","Farella Braun & Martel LLP; Conrad Metlitzky Kane LLP; Lehotsky Keller Cohn LLP"],"judge":"Jacqueline Scott Corley (N.D. Cal.); Chief Judge Murguia, Judges McKeown (author) and Paez (9th Cir.)"},"claims":["Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. 2710(d)(7)(A)(ii): sports event contracts offered to users on tribal lands are unauthorised class III gaming in violation of the tribes' secretarial procedures and gaming ordinances","Violation of tribal gaming ordinances","RICO (pleaded; not part of the PI motion)","Infringement of tribal sovereignty","Lanham Act false advertising ('Sports Betting [Is] Legal in all 50 States on Kalshi'); PI denial affirmed"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2026-11-04","money":{"fund":"","currency":"USD","attorney_fees":"","payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/09/16/25-7504.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cand-3_25-cv-06162/pdf/USCOURTS-cand-3_25-cv-06162-0.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cand-3_25-cv-06162/pdf/USCOURTS-cand-3_25-cv-06162-1.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cand-3_25-cv-06162/pdf/USCOURTS-cand-3_25-cv-06162-2.pdf"],"regulator":"","press":["https://www.jurist.org/news/2026/09/the-ninth-circuit-rules-kalshi-sports-contracts-on-tribal-lands-likely-violate-federal-law/"]},"summary":"Three compacted California tribes sued Kalshi, KalshiEX and the Robinhood entities on 22 July 2025 under IGRA, their gaming ordinances, RICO and the Lanham Act. Judge Corley denied a preliminary injunction on 10 November 2025 (Doc. 71), holding that UIGEA and the Commodity Exchange Act, not IGRA, govern Kalshi's event contracts, and stayed the case on 22 May 2026 pending the appeals. On 16 September 2026 the Ninth Circuit (McKeown, J.) reversed in part: Kalshi's sports event contracts are class III gaming, a contract entered from tribal land is located on Indian lands, the contracts violate the tribes' secretarial procedures and ordinances, and neither UIGEA nor the CEA's exclusive-jurisdiction clause displaces IGRA; the Lanham Act ruling was affirmed and the IGRA claim remanded for the remaining injunction factors. On remand Judge Corley entered a preliminary injunction on 4 November 2026 barring Kalshi from offering sports contracts on Blue Lake and Chicken Ranch lands (press report; order not yet retrieved). The first order anywhere restricting Kalshi on tribal land; the state-versus-Kalshi cases sit in the prediction-markets unit. This record duplicates GL-US-0683 in the prediction-markets unit by design; the merge dedupes on the docket string.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-US-0827"],"sources":[{"retrieved":"2026-11-14","claim":"docket numbers, panel, decision date, holding (reversed denial of PI; likely IGRA success; Lanham affirmed)","url":"https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/09/16/25-7504.pdf"},{"retrieved":"2026-11-14","claim":"Picayune withdrawal, reactions, remand","url":"https://www.jurist.org/news/2026/09/the-ninth-circuit-rules-kalshi-sports-contracts-on-tribal-lands-likely-violate-federal-law/"},{"claim":"caption: Blue Lake Rancheria; Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians v. Kalshi, Inc.; KalshiEX, LLC; Robinhood Markets, Inc.; Robinhood Derivatives, LLC; No. 25-7504, D.C. No. 3:25-cv-06162-JSC; argued 10 July 2026, filed 16 Sept 2026; Murguia C.J., McKeown (author), Paez; affirmed in part, reversed in part, remanded","url":"https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/09/16/25-7504.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"Order Denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Doc. 71, filed 10 Nov 2025, Case No. 25-cv-06162-JSC, Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley; three tribes (Blue Lake, Chicken Ranch, Picayune Rancheria) as plaintiffs; IGRA and Lanham Act claims fail on likelihood of success","url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cand-3_25-cv-06162/pdf/USCOURTS-cand-3_25-cv-06162-0.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"appeal number","url":"https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/09/16/25-7504.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"complaint filed 22 July 2025 (press; the court orders do not state the filing date)","url":"https://tribalbusinessnews.com/sections/gaming/15223-california-tribes-sue-kalshi-and-robinhood-over-sports-betting-on-reservation-lands","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"footnote 1: a third tribe, Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi Indians, was dismissed without prejudice from this appeal after oral argument pursuant to a joint stipulation (Dkt. Nos. 80, 83); district court orders of 10 Nov 2025, 21 Apr 2026 and 22 May 2026 all describe three plaintiff tribes","url":"https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/09/16/25-7504.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"panel","url":"https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/09/16/25-7504.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"counsel block; plaintiffs' counsel Rapport and Marston (Lester J. Marston)","url":"https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/09/16/25-7504.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"counsel block","url":"https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/09/16/25-7504.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"Order of 21 Apr 2026 (Doc. 81) lists the five claims of the complaint (Dkt. No. 1) and vacates the 30 Apr 2026 hearing on the motions to dismiss (Dkt. 67, 68) pending a stay decision","url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cand-3_25-cv-06162/pdf/USCOURTS-cand-3_25-cv-06162-1.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"on remand Judge Corley entered a preliminary injunction on 4 Nov 2026 barring Kalshi, Inc. and KalshiEX from offering sports contracts on Blue Lake and Chicken Ranch lands; tribes to supply boundary maps by 13 Nov; compliance report within 21 days; Robinhood not expressly bound (article 6 Nov 2026)","url":"https://crypto.news/kalshi-injunction-sports-contracts-california-tribal/","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"preliminary injunction order 4 Nov 2026 (press; order not yet on GovInfo)","url":"https://crypto.news/kalshi-injunction-sports-contracts-california-tribal/","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"Order Staying Case, Doc. 87, 22 May 2026: Landis stay until the Ninth Circuit rules in Blue Lake (25-7504) and KalshiEX v. Assad (25-7516, argued 16 Apr 2026); plaintiffs and Kalshi supported, Robinhood opposed","url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cand-3_25-cv-06162/pdf/USCOURTS-cand-3_25-cv-06162-2.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"holdings as summarised by the court staff summary and disposition","url":"https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/09/16/25-7504.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"Order of 4 Nov 2026 (Dkt. 106) granting the tribes' preliminary injunction on remand after the Ninth Circuit's 16 Sep 2026 opinion (PACER copy hosted by press)","url":"https://www.sportsbettingdime.com/app/uploads/2026/11/gov.uscourts.cand_.453216.106.0_2.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"PI denied 10 Nov 2025; three tribes; Robinhood partnership","url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cand-3_25-cv-06162/pdf/USCOURTS-cand-3_25-cv-06162-0.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"Ninth Circuit opinion 16 Sept 2026, argued 10 July 2026, panel, holdings","url":"https://www.sportsbettingdime.com/app/uploads/2026/09/Kalshi-blue-lake.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"PI entered 4 Nov 2026, scope, deadlines, Robinhood not bound","url":"https://crypto.news/kalshi-injunction-sports-contracts-california-tribal/","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"filed 22 July 2025, claims","url":"https://tribalbusinessnews.com/sections/gaming/15223-california-tribes-sue-kalshi-and-robinhood-over-sports-betting-on-reservation-lands","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"PI granted 5 Nov 2026; Buena Vista joined","url":"https://mickbransfield.com/2025/08/11/summary-of-legal-actions-involving-kalshis-sports-event-contracts/","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"Order re Preliminary Injunction, Dkt. 106, dated 4 Nov 2026 (Judge Corley): Kalshi Inc. and KalshiEX enjoined from offering any sports contracts on the Tribes' Indian lands (listed sports incl. esports, chess, UFC); tribes to provide boundary maps by 13 Nov 2026; Kalshi status report within 21 days","url":"https://www.sportsbettingdime.com/app/uploads/2026/11/gov.uscourts.cand_.453216.106.0_2.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary","note":"PACER copy of N.D. Cal. Dkt. 106 hosted by press; govinfo package has no document list"},{"claim":"Order re Preliminary Injunction, Dkt. 106, filed 11/04/26, Judge Corley: Kalshi Inc. and KalshiEX enjoined from offering any sports contracts on the Tribes' Indian lands (listed sports incl. esports, chess, UFC); maps by 13 Nov 2026; Kalshi status report within 21 days; 'Following the further status conference held on November 4, 2026'","url":"https://www.sportsbettingdime.com/app/uploads/2026/11/gov.uscourts.cand_.453216.106.0_2.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary","note":"PDF read with pdftotext"}],"open":["Filing date 22 July 2025 and the 4 Nov 2026 preliminary injunction on remand rest on press (tribalbusinessnews, crypto.news 6 Nov 2026); the injunction order is not yet on GovInfo (package holds Docs. 71, 81, 87 only); Buena Vista Rancheria joinder reported by a tracker only; motions to dismiss (Dkt. 67, 68) unresolved under the 22 May 2026 stay; docket string aligned with GL-US-0683 (us-prediction-markets) for the merge dedupe"],"status_read_from_records":true,"_units":["us-other","us-prediction-markets"],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/prediction-markets/blue-lake-rancheria-v-kalshi/"},{"id":"GL-US-0406","slug":"macek-v-draftkings-addiction","title":"Macek v. DraftKings Inc. (No. 5:25-cv-01995)","short_name":"DraftKings gambling-addiction class action (Pennsylvania, dismissed, on appeal)","aliases":["draftkings gambling addiction lawsuit","draftkings class action pennsylvania","macek v draftkings","draftkings addiction lawsuit appeal"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"US","state":"PA","court":"U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (No. 26-1903)","level":"appeal"},"docket":"5:25-cv-01995-JFL (E.D. Pa.); 26-1903 (3d Cir.)","filed":"2025-04-18","category":"addiction-duty-of-care","case_type":"class-action","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Kenneth Macek, Matthew Harner, Avi Setton, Lionel Alicea, Shane Spencer and Rangaraj Sadagopan, on behalf of Pennsylvania DraftKings and Golden Nugget users","defendants":["DraftKings Inc.","Crown PA Gaming Inc. d/b/a DraftKings","Golden Nugget Online Gaming LLC"],"class_counsel":["Loevy & Loevy"],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"Joseph F. Leeson Jr."},"claims":["negligence / duty of care toward problem gamblers","intentional infliction of emotional distress","Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law","unjust enrichment"],"status":"appealed","status_date":"2026-04-17","money":{"fund":"","currency":"USD","attorney_fees":"","payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca3/26-1903","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.paed.636455/gov.uscourts.paed.636455.1.0.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-paed-5_25-cv-01995/pdf/USCOURTS-paed-5_25-cv-01995-0.pdf"],"regulator":"","press":["https://openclassactions.com/news/draftkings-gambling-addiction-lawsuits-appeal-new-suits-october-2026.php","https://www.ingame.com/?p=46622"]},"summary":"The lead US class action testing whether a sportsbook owes a duty of care to problem gamblers. Six Pennsylvanians alleged DraftKings cultivated and exploited addiction through targeted promotions, VIP hosts and soliciting self-excluded users. On 23 March 2026 Judge Leeson granted the motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint in a 36-page opinion (ECF 44), holding that DraftKings has no duty of care toward the plaintiffs and that the app and promotions are not a single 'product'; all counts were dismissed with prejudice except Setton's conversion and unjust-enrichment claims, which were transferred to the Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on 17 April 2026 (3d Cir. No. 26-1903, docketed 21 April 2026) and asked the Third Circuit to certify the duty question to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court; briefing continues.","significance":"pending-landmark","related_cases":["GL-US-0407","GL-US-0419","GL-US-0405","GL-US-0427"],"sources":[{"claim":"complaint filed 04/18/25, E.D. Pa. 5:25-cv-01995, plaintiffs and defendants","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.paed.636455/gov.uscourts.paed.636455.1.0.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"court dismissed 5:25-cv-01995 on 23 March 2026 and transferred two remaining claims to Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas (footnote 1 of the 8 April 2026 opinion in 2:25-cv-03632)","url":"https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/risk-free-bet-refund-dispute.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"Third Circuit appeal No. 26-1903 docketed 21 April 2026, six appellants","url":"https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca3/26-1903","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"opening brief and motion to certify to Pennsylvania Supreme Court 7 July 2026; DraftKings brief due 27 Aug 2026","url":"https://openclassactions.com/news/draftkings-gambling-addiction-lawsuits-appeal-new-suits-october-2026.php","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"Opinion of 23 March 2026 (ECF 44), Judge Joseph F. Leeson Jr.: motion to dismiss First Amended Complaint granted; no duty of care; app and promotions not a single product; Counts I-III, V-IX, XI dismissed with prejudice, Counts IV and X dismissed with prejudice except Setton's claims transferred to Lehigh County C.C.P.; complaint filed 18 April 2025, amended complaint 15 July 2025","url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-paed-5_25-cv-01995/pdf/USCOURTS-paed-5_25-cv-01995-0.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"Notice of Appeal to the Third Circuit filed 17 April 2026 (Doc. 46) by all six plaintiffs from the 23 March 2026 order (Doc. Nos. 44 and 45), with Third Circuit clerk's case-opening letter","url":"https://www.robertkinglawfirm.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/draftkings-addiction-lawsuit-dismissal-appeal-april-2026.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary","note":"court-record copy hosted by a law firm"}],"open":["Lehigh County docket of the transferred Setton claims","Third Circuit argument date and ruling on the motion to certify to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court"],"status_read_from_records":true,"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/addiction-duty-of-care/macek-v-draftkings-addiction/"},{"id":"GL-US-0602","slug":"kalshi-v-flaherty-new-jersey","title":"KalshiEX LLC v. Flaherty","short_name":"Kalshi v. New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement","aliases":["kalshi new jersey lawsuit","kalshi v flaherty","third circuit kalshi","flaherty v kalshiex supreme court","is kalshi legal in new jersey"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"US","state":"NJ","court":"U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (No. 25-1922); U.S. Supreme Court (No. 26-299, cert. petition)","level":"appeal"},"docket":"1:25-cv-02152-ESK-MJS (D.N.J.); 25-1922 (3d Cir.); 26-299 (U.S.)","filed":"2025-03-29","category":"prediction-markets","case_type":"operator-v-regulator","parties":{"plaintiffs":"KalshiEX LLC","defendants":["Mary Jo Flaherty, Interim Director, N.J. Division of Gaming Enforcement","Matthew J. Platkin / Jennifer Davenport, Attorney General","N.J. Casino Control Commission members"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":["Sundeep Iyer, N.J. Office of the Attorney General (petitioner at SCOTUS)"],"judge":"Edward S. Kiel (D.N.J.); Chief Judge Chagares, Judges Porter (majority) and Roth (dissent)"},"claims":["Commodity Exchange Act preemption (7 U.S.C. 2(a)(1)(A) exclusive jurisdiction over swaps on DCMs)","Supremacy Clause, U.S. Const. art. VI"],"status":"appealed","status_date":"2026-10-30","money":{"fund":"","currency":"USD","attorney_fees":"","payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":"2026-12-07"},"links":{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/?q=%221%3A25-cv-02152%22","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-njd-1_25-cv-02152/pdf/USCOURTS-njd-1_25-cv-02152-0.pdf","https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/251922p.pdf","https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/26-299.html"],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"New Jersey's Division of Gaming Enforcement sent a cease-and-desist on 27 March 2025 citing the state constitution's ban on college-sports betting; Kalshi sued the next day and Judge Kiel granted a preliminary injunction on 28 April 2025 (2025 WL 1218313). On 6 April 2026 the Third Circuit affirmed 2-1 (172 F.4th 220): sports event contracts are swaps on a CFTC-designated contract market and both field and conflict preemption bar New Jersey's enforcement; Judge Roth dissented. New Jersey did not seek rehearing and petitioned for certiorari on 2 September 2026 (No. 26-299); amicus briefs from Ohio and 38 other states, 145 tribes, the NFL, the AGA, Gary Gensler and others were filed 22 Sept to 8 Oct 2026; Kalshi's response is due 7 December 2026. Kalshi's sports contracts remain available in New Jersey under the injunction.","significance":"pending-landmark","related_cases":["GL-US-0601","GL-US-0660"],"sources":[{"claim":"PI granted 28 Apr 2025; C&D 27 Mar 2025; compliance deadline extended to 30 Apr 2025","url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-njd-1_25-cv-02152/pdf/USCOURTS-njd-1_25-cv-02152-0.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"Third Circuit opinion decided 6 Apr 2026, argued 10 Sept 2025, Porter J., Roth J. dissenting, D.N.J. No. 1:25-cv-02152 Judge Kiel","url":"https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/251922p.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"cert. petition filed 2 Sept 2026, docketed 8 Sept 2026, amici, response due 7 Dec 2026, counsel Paul Clement and Neal Katyal","url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/26-299.html","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"172 F.4th 220 citation","url":"https://www.foley.com/?p=130779","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"No. 26-299: petition filed 2 Sept 2026 (docketed 8 Sept); response extended 22 Sept to 9 Nov and 30 Oct to 7 Dec 2026; no distribution, no order; amici incl. Ohio and 38 states, NFL, AGA, 145 tribes; Clement counsel for Kalshi","url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/26-299.html","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"open":["complaint filing date 29 Mar 2025 per tracker (the opinion says Kalshi sued 'immediately' after the 27 Mar letter)","next_hearing 2026-12-07: Kalshi's response to the cert. petition due"],"status_read_from_records":true,"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/prediction-markets/kalshi-v-flaherty-new-jersey/"},{"id":"GL-US-0601","slug":"kalshi-v-nevada-gaming-control-board","title":"KalshiEX LLC v. Hendrick (now KalshiEX LLC v. Assad)","short_name":"Kalshi v. Nevada Gaming Control Board (federal)","aliases":["kalshi nevada lawsuit","kalshi v hendrick","kalshi v assad","is kalshi legal in nevada","ninth circuit kalshi"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"US","state":"NV","court":"U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (No. 25-7516)","level":"appeal"},"docket":"2:25-cv-00575-APG-BNW (D. Nev.); 25-7516 (9th Cir.)","filed":"2025-03-28","category":"prediction-markets","case_type":"operator-v-regulator","parties":{"plaintiffs":"KalshiEX LLC","defendants":["Nevada Gaming Control Board","Nevada Gaming Commission","Nevada Attorney General Aaron D. Ford","Nevada Resort Association (intervenor-defendant)"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"Andrew P. Gordon (D. Nev.); Circuit Judges Ryan D. Nelson, Bridget S. Bade, Kenneth K. Lee"},"claims":["Commodity Exchange Act preemption (7 U.S.C. 2(a)(1)(A) exclusive jurisdiction over swaps on DCMs)","Supremacy Clause, U.S. Const. art. VI"],"status":"appealed","status_date":"2026-11-04","money":{"fund":"","currency":"USD","attorney_fees":"","payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/?q=%222%3A25-cv-00575%22","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/08/28/25-7516.pdf","https://www.gaming.nv.gov/contentassets/b9f7b024bdbc4c8693d3a511ea5d9841/ecf-no.-45---order-remanding-to-state-court.pdf"],"regulator":"https://www.gaming.nv.gov/about-us/press-releases-public-statements/","press":["https://www.cnbc.com/2026/08/28/appeals-court-rules-against-prediction-markets-tees-up-scotus-fight.html"]},"summary":"After the Board's cease-and-desist letter of 4 March 2025, Kalshi sued and Chief Judge Gordon granted a preliminary injunction on 8/9 April 2025 (2025 WL 1073495), the first court win for sports event contracts. Following his own denial of Crypto.com's motion (14 Oct 2025, 815 F. Supp. 3d 1169) he dissolved Kalshi's injunction on 24 November 2025 (817 F. Supp. 3d 1014), holding sports event contracts are not 'swaps'. The Ninth Circuit affirmed 3-0 on 28 August 2026 (Judge R. Nelson; Judge Lee concurring), holding Kalshi showed no likelihood that the CEA preempts Nevada gaming law as applied to sports contracts, and remanded only the election-contract question; panel rehearing and rehearing en banc were denied on 4 November 2026 (per the tracker and CDC Gaming; order not retrieved). This created the circuit split with the Third Circuit now before the Supreme Court. Enforcement itself moved to the state court case (GL-US-0619).","significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-US-0619","GL-US-0657","GL-US-0658","GL-US-0602"],"sources":[{"claim":"Ninth Circuit opinion 28 Aug 2026, affirmed in part and remanded in part; argued 16 Apr 2026; panel","url":"https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/08/28/25-7516.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"PI granted 2025 WL 1073495 (D. Nev. Apr. 9, 2025); dissolved 2025 WL 3286282 (Nov. 24, 2025); suit filed 28 Mar 2025; appeal docketed 25 Nov 2025","url":"https://www.gaming.nv.gov/contentassets/b9f7b024bdbc4c8693d3a511ea5d9841/ecf-no.-45---order-remanding-to-state-court.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"Board C&D 4 Mar 2025 and 14 Mar 2025 statement (press release list)","url":"https://www.gaming.nv.gov/about-us/press-releases-public-statements/","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"en banc rehearing denied 4 Nov 2026; stay pending appeal denied 16 Dec 2025","url":"https://mickbransfield.com/2025/08/11/summary-of-legal-actions-involving-kalshis-sports-event-contracts/","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"Ninth Circuit press release 28 Aug 2026","url":"https://www.gaming.nv.gov/siteassets/content/about/press-release/ninth-circuit-rules-in-favor-of-nevada.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"panel rehearing and rehearing en banc denied (reported Wednesday 4 Nov 2026; no judge requested an en banc vote)","url":"https://cdcgaming.com/u-s-appeals-court-denies-kalshis-petition-for-rehearing-in-nevada-case/","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"}],"open":["whether Kalshi files a certiorari petition (its response in No. 26-299 is due 7 Dec 2026)","Ninth Circuit order denying rehearing not retrieved; date is 4 Nov 2026 per the Bransfield tracker and CDC Gaming, 3 Nov 2026 per Focus Gaming News; cert. petition window runs 90 days from the denial"],"status_read_from_records":false,"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/prediction-markets/kalshi-v-nevada-gaming-control-board/"},{"id":"GL-US-0202","slug":"robinson-v-yellow-social-interactive-pulsz-six-state-settlement","title":"Robinson v. Yellow Social Interactive, Ltd.","short_name":"Pulsz six-state settlement (est. USD 14M)","aliases":["pulsz settlement","ysi settlement","pulsz class action settlement 2026","pulsz 23% cash back","ysisettlement.com","pilati v. yellow social interactive","pulsz settlement election form"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"US","state":"AL","court":"Circuit Court of Franklin County, Alabama","level":"first-instance"},"docket":"33-CV-2025-900072.00","filed":"2025","category":"sweepstakes-casino","case_type":"class-action","parties":{"plaintiffs":"John Pilati, Leshaun Robinson, Luke Whitney, Carissa Pyles, Thomas Veil, Sharon King and Steven Davis for all persons who spent money on Pulsz or Pulszbingo while in Alabama (from 2022-03-08), Tennessee (from 2022-11-12), Kentucky (from 2023-06-29), Ohio, New Jersey or Massachusetts (from 2024-02-19), each through 2026-08-31","defendants":["Yellow Social Interactive Limited"],"class_counsel":["Davis & Norris, LLP","Bedford, Rogers & Bowling, P.C."],"defense_counsel":["Duane Morris LLP"],"judge":"Brian P. Hamilton"},"claims":["Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, New Jersey and Massachusetts gambling-loss recovery statutes (sale of virtual chips alleged to be illegal gambling)"],"status":"claims-open","status_date":"2026-08-31","money":{"fund":14000000,"currency":"USD","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"estimated 23% of net spend in cash (before deductions), or 27% in Gold Coins; e.g. USD 1,000 net spend = about USD 230 cash before the pro-rata deduction of fees (requested up to 30%), administration costs and incentive awards, so roughly USD 150 to 230","payout_formula":"Estimated Total Benefit (about USD 14M) = 25% of all class members' Net Purchase Amounts in the six states (settlement agreement 1.16, 1.37). Default (s. 2.1(a)(i)): Virtual Gold Coins equal to 27% of the member's Net Purchase Amount less Settlement Administration Expenses and Attorney Fees and Expenses, at 10,000 coins per USD, no form needed; YSI may amortise delivery over up to 12 months provided at least 20% is credited within 30 days of the start of the benefit. Election (ysisettlement.com, by 2026-11-30; s. 2.1(a)(ii)): cash equal to 23% of the Net Purchase Amount less the same deductions, capped in aggregate at 25% of the Estimated Total Benefit (about USD 3.5M), excess paid in Gold Coins. Fee Award (s. 8.1-8.2): up to 30% of the Settlement Amount plus expenses, paid by the defendant (up to 50% advanced from the Settlement Fund), while s. 2.1 computes member benefits net of fees and administration; incentive awards up to USD 10,000 each (s. 8.3). Cash paid within 60 days after the Effective Date (s. 2.1(c)); cheques void after 90 days (s. 2.1(d)).","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"2026-11-30","exclusion_deadline":"2026-11-30","final_approval_hearing":"2026-12-31","payment_date":"","next_hearing":"2026-12-31"},"links":{"docket":"","administrator":"https://www.ysisettlement.com/","claim_form":"https://www.ysisettlement.com/","orders":["https://www.classaction.org/media/ysi-pao.pdf","https://www.classaction.org/media/ysi-settlement.pdf"],"regulator":"","press":["https://www.classaction.org/news/roughly-14m-yellow-social-interactive-settlement-ends-lawsuit-over-pulsz-virtual-coin-sales","https://openclassactions.com/settlements/pulsz-social-casino-class-action-settlement.php"]},"summary":"Consolidated six-state settlement of claims that Pulsz and Pulsz Bingo virtual chip sales were illegal gambling under Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, New Jersey and Massachusetts law (first-named plaintiff John Pilati; the agreement calls the action Robinson v. YSI). The Estimated Total Benefit of about USD 14 million (25% of class members' net purchases) is paid mainly in Gold Coins (27% of net spend, in instalments over two or five years) with an optional cash election of 23% of net spend, capped in aggregate at a quarter of the total benefit. Judge Brian P. Hamilton granted preliminary approval on 2026-08-31 and appointed EisnerAmper as administrator; election and exclusion deadline 2026-11-30; fairness hearing 2026-12-31 at 10:00 in Russellville, Alabama. It is the only sweepstakes-casino settlement with an election window open in November 2026.","significance":"largest-settlement","related_cases":["GL-US-0201","GL-US-0040","GL-US-0268"],"sources":[{"claim":"court, judge, case number, class representatives, class periods, 27%/23% formula, cash cap 25%, deadline 2026-11-30, hearing 2026-12-31, phone, website (court-authorised long-form notice)","url":"https://www.classaction.org/media/ysi-long-notice.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"estimated total benefit USD 14M, preliminary approval 2026-08-31, claims portal","url":"https://www.classaction.org/news/roughly-14m-yellow-social-interactive-settlement-ends-lawsuit-over-pulsz-virtual-coin-sales","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"administrator Eisner Advisory Group (EisnerAmper), fee request up to 30% due 2026-11-16, hearing location Russellville","url":"https://openclassactions.com/settlements/pulsz-social-casino-class-action-settlement.php","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"home page: case name Robinson v. Yellow Social Interactive, LTD., Circuit Court of Franklin County, Alabama, 33-CV-2025-900072.00; class periods by state; election, exclusion and objection deadline 2026-11-30; fairness hearing 2026-12-31","url":"https://www.ysisettlement.com/","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"FAQ: 27% Gold Coins at 10,000 per USD, 23% cash by election, 25% aggregate cash cap, fee request up to 30% to be posted by 2026-11-16, incentive awards up to USD 10,000, class counsel Davis & Norris LLP and Bedford, Rogers & Bowling P.C., Judge Brian P. Hamilton, hearing 2026-12-31 10:00 at 410 N. Jackson Avenue, Russellville","url":"https://www.ysisettlement.com/faq","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"Order Preliminarily Approving Class Action Settlement (Doc. 40, entered 2026-08-31, Judge Hamilton): caption Pilati, Robinson, Whitney, Pyles et al. v. Yellow Social Interactive, Ltd., CV-2025-900072.00; settlement agreement dated 2025-12-23; fairness hearing 2026-12-31 10:00; EisnerAmper appointed Settlement Administrator; notice within 35 days","url":"https://www.classaction.org/media/ysi-pao.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"Settlement Agreement: Action captioned Robinson v. YSI in Franklin County; term sheet 2025-06-19; Estimated Total Benefit = 25% of Net Purchase Amounts, about USD 14M; Actual Total Benefit formula; pending actions released: Pilati v. YSI 33-CV-2023-900038 (Franklin Co.), Duckworth v. YSI 2023-CV-49181 (Tenn.), Jenkins v. YSI 4:24-cv-91 (W.D. Ky.); defence counsel Duane Morris","url":"https://www.classaction.org/media/ysi-settlement.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"s. 2.1(a)(i) Gold Coins 27% net of fees and administration, amortisation up to 12 months with 20% in 30 days; s. 2.1(a)(ii) cash 23%, 25% aggregate cap; s. 8.1 fee cap 30%, paid by defendant; s. 8.2 up to 50% from the Settlement Fund; s. 8.3 incentive awards up to USD 10,000","url":"https://www.ysisettlement.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/YSI_Class_Settlement-final-signed-by-all.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"open":["attorney fee award pending; 30% is the requested ceiling","the USD 14M figure is the Estimated Total Benefit (mostly Gold Coins), not a cash fund; the cash pool is capped at about USD 3.5M"],"status_read_from_records":true,"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/sweepstakes-casino/robinson-v-yellow-social-interactive-pulsz-six-state-settlement/"},{"id":"GL-US-0014","slug":"horn-v-amazon-social-casino","title":"Horn v. Amazon.com, Inc. (Amazon Appstore social casino)","short_name":"Amazon social casino settlement","aliases":["amazon social casino settlement","amazon appstore gambling lawsuit","horn v amazon","amazon 201 million settlement"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"US","state":"WA","court":"U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington (Seattle)","level":"first-instance"},"docket":"2:23-cv-01727","filed":"2023-11-10","category":"social-casino","case_type":"class-action","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Steven Horn (Nevada) and all individuals in the United States who made one or more in-app purchases between 10 November 2019 and 10 November 2025 in any of the covered social casino applications obtained from the Amazon Appstore","defendants":["Amazon.com, Inc."],"class_counsel":["Edelson PC"],"defense_counsel":["Perkins Coie LLP"],"judge":"Robert S. Lasnik"},"claims":["RCW 4.24.070","RCW 19.86","Washington Gambling Act"],"status":"filed","status_date":"2026-07-09","money":{"fund":"","currency":"USD","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"Proposed settlement (unopposed motion for preliminary approval filed 9 Jul 2026, Dkt. 131): covenant judgment of USD 201,355,607.75 against Amazon plus USD 2.5M for administration, assigned to a litigation trust that pursues 32 developers under their indemnities; no preliminary approval order found by 15 Nov 2026, so no fund is recorded","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://dockets.justia.com/docket/washington/wawdce/2:2023cv01727/328419","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/lbpgdljjdvq/W.D.Wash._2_23-cv-01727-RSL_131_0.pdf"],"regulator":"","press":["https://www.covers.com/industry/amazon-agrees-to-settlement-over-social-casino-apps-lawsuit-july-14-2026","https://www.bhfs.com/insight/indemnification-as-currency-201-million-settlement-shifts-risk-to-developers/","https://next.io/news/regulation/settlement-talks-continue-social-gaming-lawsuit-amazon/"]},"summary":"Filed 10 November 2023 alleging Amazon acts as broker and payment processor for illegal social casino chip sales, keeping 30%. Stayed 26 January 2024 pending the Ninth Circuit's platform appeal, stay lifted 29 October 2024; mediations June and September 2025. On 9 July 2026 the plaintiff moved unopposed for preliminary approval of a settlement built on a USD 201.4 million covenant judgment that the class will not execute against Amazon, funded instead by assigned indemnification claims against 32 developers including Product Madness, Scopely, DoubleU Games and SpinX; several developers moved to intervene. Claims and objection deadlines fall 56 days after the notice date once preliminary approval is granted.","significance":"pending-landmark","related_cases":["GL-US-0015","GL-US-0016","GL-US-0017","GL-US-0004"],"sources":[{"claim":"docket, judge, filing date, class definition and period, covenant judgment amount, USD 2.5M, trust, 32 developers, 80% participation, stay history, 56-day deadlines","url":"https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/lbpgdljjdvq/W.D.Wash._2_23-cv-01727-RSL_131_0.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary","note":"Dkt. 131 of 9 July 2026, Reuters-hosted PACER copy"},{"claim":"developers moved to intervene; mechanics","url":"https://www.bhfs.com/insight/indemnification-as-currency-201-million-settlement-shifts-risk-to-developers/","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"counsel, mediation dates, status report 6 Oct 2025","url":"https://next.io/news/regulation/settlement-talks-continue-social-gaming-lawsuit-amazon/","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"Brownstein client alert of 28 Sept 2026: preliminary approval still pending, several developers moved to intervene","url":"https://www.bhfs.com/insight/indemnification-as-currency-201-million-settlement-shifts-risk-to-developers/","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"}],"open":["preliminary approval ruling","full list of the 32 developers (Exhibit to the agreement)","notice date, claim and objection deadlines, final approval hearing","fee request","no preliminary approval order found as of 14 Nov 2026 (searches, Brownstein alert of 28 Sept 2026)"],"status_read_from_records":false,"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/social-casino/horn-v-amazon-social-casino/"},{"id":"GL-US-1000","slug":"colvin-v-roblox","title":"Colvin et al. v. Roblox Corporation, Satozuki Limited B.V., Studs Entertainment Ltd. and RBLXWild Entertainment LLC (now captioned De Ridder et al. v. Roblox Corporation et al.)","short_name":"Roblox Robux gambling class action","aliases":["roblox gambling lawsuit","roblox class action gambling","roblox settlement claim form","roblox compensation","rbxflip bloxflip rblxwild lawsuit","roblox casino lawsuit","de ridder v roblox","soucek v roblox","roblox gambling lawsuit 2026"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"US","state":"CA","court":"U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco)","level":"first-instance"},"docket":"3:23-cv-04146-VC","filed":"2023-08-15","category":"loot-boxes","case_type":"class-action","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Originally Rachelle Colvin and Danielle Sass as next friends of minors G.D. and L.C.; current named plaintiffs Yaniv De Ridder as next friend of minor T.D. and Nathan Soucek (formerly through his mother Aracely Soucek; De Ridder and Aracely Soucek dismissed their individual claims); proposed nationwide, California and New York classes of parents whose minor children acquired Robux and wagered and lost them on RBXFlip, Bloxflip or RBLXWild","defendants":["Roblox Corporation","Satozuki Limited B.V. (RBXFlip)","Studs Entertainment Ltd. (Bloxflip)","RBLXWild Entertainment LLC (RBLXWild)","Based Plate Studios LLC (Bloxflip operator, cross-defendant)","Shane Selinger (Bloxflip developer, added by the second amended complaint of 2 June 2025)","Boris Said Jr. (creator of RBLXWild, added by the second amended complaint of 2 June 2025)"],"class_counsel":["Gibbs Mura LLP (Andre M. Mura, Jake M. Seidman), attorneys for plaintiffs and the proposed class; no class certified"],"defense_counsel":["Cooley LLP (Roblox: Tiana Demas, Kevin T. Carlson, Kyle C. Wong)"],"judge":"Vince Chhabria"},"claims":["RICO 18 U.S.C. 1962 and 1955 (dismissed 2024-03-26)","California Unfair Competition Law (unlawful prong, facilitation of illegal gambling)","California CLRA (dismissed)","New York GBL 349 (dismissed)","negligence","unjust enrichment","fraud and omission theories (dismissed with prejudice 2024-09-19)","civil conspiracy (dismissed 2024-03-28 supplemental order)","UCL unlawful prong against the RBLXWild operator via California Penal Code 337j, 18 U.S.C. 1955 and 31 U.S.C. 5363: Robux held to be a 'thing of value' (2025-12-10)"],"status":"motion-to-dismiss","status_date":"2025-12-10","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"USD","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"no settlement or judgment; damages sought are the Robux lost by minors (complaint cites one interview claiming over 7 billion Robux, about USD 70 million, wagered on one site)","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.416876/gov.uscourts.cand.416876.65.0.pdf","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cand-3_23-cv-04146/pdf/USCOURTS-cand-3_23-cv-04146-1.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cand-3_23-cv-04146/pdf/USCOURTS-cand-3_23-cv-04146-2.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cand-3_23-cv-04146/pdf/USCOURTS-cand-3_23-cv-04146-3.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cand-3_23-cv-04146/pdf/USCOURTS-cand-3_23-cv-04146-4.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cand-3_23-cv-04146/pdf/USCOURTS-cand-3_23-cv-04146-6.pdf","https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2026/10/30/25-6635.pdf","https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.416876/gov.uscourts.cand.416876.65.0.pdf","https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/colvin-v-roblox-mtd-ruling.pdf","https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.416876/gov.uscourts.cand.416876.159.0.pdf"],"regulator":"","press":["https://www.classaction.org/news/class-action-claims-roblox-casino-websites-operate-illegal-gambling-ring-targeted-at-children","https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/consumer-products/video-games/roblox-class-action-alleges-platform-allows-minors-to-gamble/"]},"summary":"Parents allege that Roblox knowingly processes, and takes a 30 percent cut of, the Robux transactions that let off-platform casinos (RBXFlip, Bloxflip, RBLXWild) run coin flips, roulette, slots and treasure chests for children. Judge Chhabria dismissed the RICO claims but rejected Roblox's Section 230 and no-economic-injury defences (Dkt. 65, 26 March 2024; civil conspiracy dismissed and unjust enrichment allowed by supplemental order Dkt. 66, 28 March 2024), held Roblox's design of a 'clearinghouse for illegal transactions' is actionable misfeasance so negligence proceeds while dismissing the fraud and omission claims with prejudice (Dkt. 108, 19 September 2024), and on 10 December 2025 (Dkt. 315) denied RBLXWild creator Boris Said's motion to dismiss, holding that Robux are a 'thing of value' under California Penal Code 337j because they are akin to arcade tokens. Gentry v. Roblox was consolidated on 18 April 2024; a second amended complaint added the site operators Selinger and Said on 2 June 2025; Bloxflip developer Shane Selinger lost a motion to compel arbitration on 8 October 2025 and the Ninth Circuit affirmed on 30 October 2026 (De Ridder v. Selinger, No. 25-6635, argued 19 October 2026: no contract was formed because the children lacked actual or inquiry notice of Bloxflip's terms). MLex reported on 4 June 2026 that a federal judge approved an information-sharing settlement between the plaintiffs and the operators of two gambling sites. Discovery against Roblox continued through October 2026 (Dkt. 379, 12 August 2026; Dkt. 399, 1 October 2026). No settlement with Roblox, no class certification, no claim form.","significance":"pending-landmark","related_cases":["GL-US-1001","GL-US-1002","GL-US-0019"],"sources":[{"claim":"complaint filed 15 August 2023, parties, RICO/UCL/CLRA/GBL/negligence counts, nationwide, California and New York classes, Robux volume allegations","url":"https://www.classaction.org/media/colvin-et-al-v-roblox-corporation-et-al.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"26 March 2024 order: RICO, CLRA, GBL dismissed; UCL and negligence proceed; Section 230 and economic-injury arguments rejected","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.416876/gov.uscourts.cand.416876.65.0.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"19 September 2024 order (Dkt. 108): fraud-based claims and injunctive relief dismissed with prejudice, negligence and monetary relief proceed, misfeasance reasoning","url":"https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/colvin-v-roblox-mtd-ruling.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"Roblox motion to dismiss (Dkt. 31, 24 October 2023): defendants, Section 230 and neutral-tools defence, 30 percent commission, hearing 25 January 2024","url":"https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/roblox-motion.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"Roblox 10-Q: Gentry filed 14 March 2024 and consolidated 18 April 2024; cross-claims 20 November 2024; second amended complaint 2 June 2025; later motion to dismiss granted in part; discovery ongoing; Roblox dates Colvin to 1 August 2023","url":"https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1315098/000162828026068253/rblx-20260930.htm","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"settlement between plaintiffs and operators of two gambling sites approved by a federal judge, reported 4 June 2026; operators to provide information for the case against Roblox","url":"https://www.mlex.com/mlex/articles/2486070/us-federal-judge-approves-settlement-with-gambling-sites-in-roblox-litigation","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"supplemental order Dkt. 66, 28 March 2024: civil conspiracy dismissed, unjust enrichment proceeds (GovInfo copy)","url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cand-3_23-cv-04146/pdf/USCOURTS-cand-3_23-cv-04146-2.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"GovInfo copies of Dkt. 65 (26 March 2024), Dkt. 108 (19 September 2024) and Dkt. 159 (16 April 2025)","url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cand-3_23-cv-04146/pdf/USCOURTS-cand-3_23-cv-04146-1.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"order Dkt. 315, 10 December 2025, caption De Ridder et al. v. Roblox: Said's motion to dismiss denied; Robux are things of value under Penal Code 337j; RBLXWild description; UCL unlawful and unfair prongs, negligence and unjust enrichment proceed against Said","url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cand-3_23-cv-04146/pdf/USCOURTS-cand-3_23-cv-04146-6.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"Ninth Circuit memorandum De Ridder v. Selinger, No. 25-6635, filed 30 October 2026, argued 19 October 2026 (S.R. Thomas, Koh, Tung): denial of Selinger's motion to compel arbitration affirmed; plaintiffs identified as De Ridder (for T.D.) and Nathan Soucek","url":"https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2026/10/30/25-6635.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"plaintiffs' counsel Gibbs Mura LLP and Roblox counsel Cooley LLP, caption Soucek et al. (stipulation Dkt. 201, 13 June 2025)","url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cand-3_23-cv-04146/pdf/USCOURTS-cand-3_23-cv-04146-5.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"discovery orders Dkt. 379 (12 August 2026, RBXFlip transaction interrogatories) and Dkt. 399 (1 October 2026) show discovery ongoing","url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cand-3_23-cv-04146/pdf/USCOURTS-cand-3_23-cv-04146-10.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"8 October 2025 district court order denying Selinger's motion to compel arbitration; Ninth Circuit denied parents' motion for summary affirmance (reported 3 March 2026)","url":"https://www.mealeys.com/mealeys/mealeys-cyber-tech-e-commerce/articles/2448368/9th-circuit-denies-quick-win-to-roblox-players-parents-on-arbitration-dispute","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"Selinger's appellant brief (reported 16 April 2026) and parents' answering brief (reported 4 June 2026)","url":"https://www.mealeys.com/mealeys/mealeys-cyber-tech-e-commerce/articles/2466546/-robux-gambling-game-developer-says-kids-bound-by-arbitration-agreement","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"}],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":["Roblox's SEC filings give the filing date as 1 August 2023; the file-stamped complaint says 15 August 2023","text of the 8 October 2025 order denying Selinger's motion to compel arbitration not retrieved (date from Mealey's; the denial and its affirmance are confirmed by the Ninth Circuit memorandum of 30 October 2026)","order approving the settlement between plaintiffs and two site operators (MLex, 4 June 2026) not retrieved; operators and order date not confirmed; MLex teaser says the operators agreed to provide information for the case against Roblox","date and text of the order granting in part Roblox's motion to dismiss portions of the second amended complaint (motion filed 23 June 2025; Roblox 10-Q says granted) not found","no class certification ruling found; Gibbs Mura is plaintiffs' counsel, not court-appointed class counsel"],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/loot-boxes/colvin-v-roblox/"},{"id":"GL-US-0443","slug":"dufoe-v-draftkings-nft-settlement","title":"Dufoe v. DraftKings Inc.","short_name":"DraftKings NFT (Reignmakers / Marketplace) securities settlement","aliases":["draftkings nft settlement","draftkings nft class action","draftkings reignmakers lawsuit","draftkings nft settlement payout"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"US","state":"MA","court":"U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts","level":"first-instance"},"docket":"1:23-cv-10524-DJC","filed":"2023-03-09","category":"securities-shareholder","case_type":"class-action","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Justin Dufoe, on behalf of all persons who purchased, acquired, sold, held, used or otherwise transacted in NFTs in a DraftKings account between 11 August 2021 and 28 February 2025 (including Marketplace NFTs)","defendants":["DraftKings Inc.","Jason D. Robins","Jason K. Park","Matthew Kalish"],"class_counsel":["Kirby McInerney LLP (lead counsel)","Berman Tabacco (local counsel)","Hannafan & Hannafan, Ltd."],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"Denise J. Casper"},"claims":["Securities Act of 1933 ss. 5 and 12(a)(1) (unregistered securities)","Securities Exchange Act (unregistered exchange, DK Marketplace)","state securities laws"],"status":"paid","status_date":"2026-07-27","money":{"fund":10000000,"currency":"USD","attorney_fees":"","payout_estimate":"Pro rata share of the net fund based on each claimant's recognised net loss on DraftKings NFTs; checks mailed to authorised claimants after the court's approval","payout_formula":"Net Settlement Fund = $10,000,000 + interest - taxes - notice and administration costs (up to $180,000 authorised by the Final Approval Order) - fee and expense award (class counsel requested 33 1/3%, i.e. about $3.33 million, plus expenses) - service award. Each claimant receives Net Fund x (own recognised loss / all claimants' recognised losses), with losses computed from primary-market (drop) and secondary-market purchases, reduced by secondary-market sale proceeds and any payment received under the July 2024 marketplace shutdown offer. Claims with no recognised loss or under $5 receive nothing. Per-claimant amounts were not published.","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"2025-07-21","exclusion_deadline":"2025-07-09","final_approval_hearing":"2025-07-30","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"","administrator":"https://www.draftkingsnftsettlement.com/","claim_form":"https://www.draftkingsnftsettlement.com/","orders":["https://www.draftkingsnftsettlement.com/media/pgglzw5m/order-and-final-judgement.pdf","https://www.draftkingsnftsettlement.com/media/0chjoxis/order-approving-settlement-distribution-to-authorized-claimants.pdf","https://www.draftkingsnftsettlement.com/media/smpfrruz/ecf-133-status-report.pdf"],"regulator":"","press":["https://www.classaction.org/news/10m-draftkings-settlement-wraps-up-nft-class-action-lawsuit","https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/open-lawsuit-settlements/10m-draftkings-nft-class-action-settlement/","https://news.bloomberglaw.com/securities-law/draftkings-10-million-nft-settlement-gets-final-court-assent"]},"summary":"An Illinois buyer who lost about $14,000 on DraftKings Reignmakers NFTs alleged the tokens were unregistered securities and the DK Marketplace an unregistered exchange. Judge Casper denied the motion to dismiss on 2 July 2024, finding the NFTs plausibly investment contracts under Howey, and DraftKings shut the marketplace within weeks. A $10 million settlement (Stipulation dated 26 February 2025) was preliminarily approved on 28 February 2025; claims closed 21 July 2025 after a 120-day claims period; final approval was granted on 30 July 2025 (ECF 106). Late-claim motions delayed distribution: the court authorised the initial distribution of the Net Settlement Fund on 27 July 2026 (ECF 139), accepting timely claims and late claims received by 30 July 2025, and the administrator, A.B. Data, then mailed checks to authorised claimants (claim-status letters had gone out on 7 October 2025). The only US sportsbook-related securities class action paid to date.","significance":"largest-settlement","related_cases":["GL-US-0444"],"sources":[{"claim":"administrator site: caption, docket 1:23-cv-10524, Judge Casper, $10,000,000 fund, class definition, deadlines 21 July and 9 July 2025, hearing 30 July 2025, A.B. Data, Kirby McInerney, checks mailed","url":"https://www.draftkingsnftsettlement.com/","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"settlement filed 26 Feb 2025, preliminary approval 28 Feb 2025, class period from 11 Aug 2021, unregistered securities and exchange allegations","url":"https://www.classaction.org/news/10m-draftkings-settlement-wraps-up-nft-class-action-lawsuit","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"class period end 28 Feb 2025; payments based on amount paid and market type; reductions for secondary sales and shutdown offer","url":"https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/open-lawsuit-settlements/10m-draftkings-nft-class-action-settlement/","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"final approval reported 31 July 2025","url":"https://news.bloomberglaw.com/securities-law/draftkings-10-million-nft-settlement-gets-final-court-assent","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"lead plaintiff to request $50,000 service award; attorneys fees up to one third","url":"https://cointelegraph.com/news/draftkings-10-million-settlement-nft-class-suit","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"Status Report, Document 133 filed 04/17/26 (Kirby McInerney, lead counsel): claims due 21 July 2025 after a 120-day claims period; 'The Court granted final approval of the Settlement on July 30, 2025. ECF No. 106'; distribution motion ECF 130 filed 26 Jan 2026; late-claim motions pending","url":"https://www.draftkingsnftsettlement.com/media/smpfrruz/ecf-133-status-report.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary","note":"court filing published by the court-appointed administrator"},{"claim":"Order Approving Settlement Distribution to Authorized Claimants, Document 139 filed 07/27/26, Judge Denise J. Casper: initial distribution of the Net Settlement Fund authorised; timely claims and untimely claims received by 30 July 2025 accepted; no claims after 26 Jan 2026; administration costs beyond the $180,000 authorised by the Final Approval Order payable from the remainder","url":"https://www.draftkingsnftsettlement.com/media/0chjoxis/order-approving-settlement-distribution-to-authorized-claimants.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary","note":"court order published by the administrator"},{"claim":"Order and Final Judgment, Document 106 filed 07/30/25 (12 pages)","url":"https://www.draftkingsnftsettlement.com/media/pgglzw5m/order-and-final-judgement.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary","note":"scanned image without text layer; fee and expense award amounts not readable without OCR"},{"claim":"Lead counsel's fee memorandum: request for 33 1/3% of the $10,000,000 Settlement Amount plus unreimbursed litigation expenses and a service award; lodestar through 20 June 2025 $3,403,362","url":"https://www.draftkingsnftsettlement.com/media/1r1o3ans/memorandum-of-law-in-support-of-lead-counsels-motion-for-attorneys-fees-litigation-expenses-and-service-award-to.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary","note":"court filing published by the administrator"}],"open":["fee, expense and service awards actually granted in the 30 July 2025 Order and Final Judgment (scanned, not machine-readable)","number of valid claims, total recognised loss and average payment","check mailing date (administrator site says checks mailed, undated; distribution authorised 27 July 2026)","original complaint filing date reported as 9 March 2023 by press"],"status_read_from_records":true,"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/securities-shareholder/dufoe-v-draftkings-nft-settlement/"},{"id":"GL-US-1017","slug":"ftc-v-epic-games-fortnite-refunds","title":"In the Matter of Epic Games, Inc. (FTC dark patterns and unauthorised charges order)","short_name":"Fortnite FTC USD 245 million refund order","aliases":["fortnite ftc refund","epic games ftc settlement","fortnite refund claim","ftc fortnite payments 2026","epic games 245 million"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"US","state":"","court":"Federal Trade Commission (administrative consent order); related COPPA case in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina","level":"regulatory-court"},"docket":"FTC matter 1923203","filed":"2022-12-19","category":"loot-boxes","case_type":"regulator-v-operator","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Federal Trade Commission (COPPA complaint filed by the Department of Justice on referral)","defendants":["Epic Games, Inc."],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":""},"claims":["Section 5 FTC Act: dark patterns and counterintuitive button layout causing unwanted in-game charges (January 2017 to September 2022); children's purchases without cardholder consent (to November 2018); locking accounts of users who disputed charges","COPPA Rule (separate USD 275 million civil penalty, E.D.N.C.)"],"status":"claims-closed","status_date":"2025-07-09","money":{"fund":245000000,"currency":"USD","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"USD 114 average in round one; about USD 130 average in round two","payout_formula":"FTC-administered refunds (Rust Consulting) to claimants charged for unwanted items, whose children charged their cards without knowledge, or whose accounts were locked after a dispute; round one 9 December 2024: 629,344 payments totalling more than USD 72 million (average about USD 114); round two June 2025: 969,173 payments totalling more than USD 126 million to claimants who filed by 14 February 2025; further payments expected in 2026 after validation of claims filed up to the 9 July 2025 deadline; remaining amount per claimant = (USD 245M less about USD 198M paid less administration) divided by late valid claims, neither of which the FTC has published","payout_actual":"about USD 198 million in two rounds (USD 72M + USD 126M)","fine_or_damages":"USD 275,000,000 COPPA civil penalty paid to the Treasury (separate order)"},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"2025-07-09","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"2025-06","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/03/ftc-finalizes-order-requiring-fortnite-maker-epic-games-pay-245-million-tricking-users-making","administrator":"https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/refunds/fortnite-refunds","claim_form":"https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/refunds/fortnite-refunds","orders":["https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/03/ftc-finalizes-order-requiring-fortnite-maker-epic-games-pay-245-million-tricking-users-making"],"regulator":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2022/12/fortnite-video-game-maker-epic-games-pay-more-half-billion-dollars-over-ftc-allegations","press":["https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/12/ftc-sends-refund-payments-consumers-impacted-epic-games-unlawful-billing-practices"]},"summary":"The largest consumer redress in a video game case. The FTC alleged Fortnite's confusing button layout charged players while the game woke from sleep or on loading screens, that children could buy V-Bucks without parental consent until 2018, and that Epic locked the accounts of players who disputed charges. Epic agreed on 19 December 2022 to USD 245 million in refunds (order finalised 14 March 2023, vote 4-0) plus a USD 275 million COPPA penalty in a separate DOJ-filed case. Claims opened in September 2023 and closed on 9 July 2025; the FTC has paid about USD 198 million in two rounds and expects further payments in 2026. This is not a loot box case in law, but it is the refund programme Fortnite players search for, and it sits beside the loot llama settlement.","significance":"largest-settlement","related_cases":["GL-US-1016","GL-US-1018"],"sources":[{"claim":"USD 245 million refund order finalised 14 March 2023, vote 4-0, prohibitions, matter 1923203","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/03/ftc-finalizes-order-requiring-fortnite-maker-epic-games-pay-245-million-tricking-users-making","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"USD 520 million package announced 19 December 2022; USD 275 million COPPA penalty via DOJ complaint in E.D.N.C.; allegations on buttons, account locks, children's purchases","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2022/12/fortnite-video-game-maker-epic-games-pay-more-half-billion-dollars-over-ftc-allegations","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"9 December 2024: 629,344 payments, more than USD 72 million, average about USD 114, Rust Consulting administrator","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/12/ftc-sends-refund-payments-consumers-impacted-epic-games-unlawful-billing-practices","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"June 2025: 969,173 payments, more than USD 126 million; claim deadline 9 July 2025; no new claims; additional payments expected in 2026; eligibility periods","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/refunds/fortnite-refunds","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":["E.D.N.C. docket number of the COPPA case not read from a court document","amount and date of the 2026 round not announced"],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/loot-boxes/ftc-v-epic-games-fortnite-refunds/"},{"id":"GL-US-0824","slug":"maverick-gaming-v-united-states-washington-tribal-sports-betting","title":"Maverick Gaming LLC (RunItOneTime LLC, fka Maverick Gaming LLC) v. United States","short_name":"Washington tribal sports betting monopoly challenge","aliases":["maverick gaming lawsuit washington","maverick gaming supreme court tribal compacts","washington sports betting cardrooms lawsuit"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"US","state":"WA","court":"U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington; Ninth Circuit; U.S. Supreme Court","level":"supreme"},"docket":"W.D. Wash. 3:22-cv-05325-DGE; 9th Cir. 23-35136; S. Ct. 24-1161","filed":"2022-01","category":"antitrust","case_type":"operator-v-regulator","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Maverick Gaming LLC (cardroom operator, now RunItOneTime LLC)","defendants":["United States","Department of the Interior","Washington State officials","Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe (intervenor)"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"David G. Estudillo (W.D. Wash.); Wardlaw (author), W. Fletcher, Miller (concurring) (9th Cir.)"},"claims":["IGRA, Equal Protection and Tenth Amendment challenge to compact amendments granting Washington tribes exclusive sports betting"],"status":"dismissed","status_date":"2025-10-06","money":{"fund":"","currency":"USD","attorney_fees":"","payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/12/13/23-35136.pdf","https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-1161.html"],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"Maverick, which owns most of Washington's commercial cardrooms, said the 2020 law and compact amendments giving tribes a sports betting monopoly violated IGRA and equal protection. The district court dismissed because the Shoalwater Bay Tribe, which intervened and then invoked immunity, was a required party under Rule 19; the Ninth Circuit affirmed on 13 December 2024 and the Supreme Court denied certiorari on 6 October 2025. The merits were never reached, so tribal exclusivity in Washington stands by procedure rather than by judgment.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":[],"sources":[{"retrieved":"2026-11-14","claim":"Ninth Circuit opinion 13 Dec 2024, district docket 3:22-cv-05325-DGE, Rule 19 holding","url":"https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/12/13/23-35136.pdf"},{"retrieved":"2026-11-14","claim":"cert petition filed 9 May 2025, denied 6 Oct 2025","url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-1161.html"},{"claim":"No. 23-35136, D.C. No. 3:22-cv-05325-DGE, argued 27 March 2024, filed 13 Dec 2024, affirmed: Shoalwater Bay Tribe required party under Rule 19","url":"https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/12/13/23-35136.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"RunItOneTime LLC, fka Maverick Gaming LLC v. United States; 9th Cir. 23-35136 decided 13 Dec 2024; petition filed 9 May 2025; denied 6 Oct 2025","url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-1161.html","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"open":[],"status_read_from_records":true,"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/antitrust/maverick-gaming-v-united-states-washington-tribal-sports-betting/"},{"id":"GL-US-0018","slug":"in-re-facebook-simulated-casino-style-games-ninth-circuit-2024","title":"In re Facebook Simulated Casino-Style Games Litigation, No. 22-16888 (9th Cir. May 21, 2024)","short_name":"Platform appeals dismissed 2024","aliases":["social casino section 230 appeal dismissed","9th circuit casino apps 2024"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"US","state":"CA","court":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit","level":"appeal"},"docket":"22-16888 (with 22-16889, 22-16914, 22-16916, 22-16921, 22-16923)","filed":"2022","category":"social-casino","case_type":"appeal","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Consolidated plaintiffs","defendants":["Meta Platforms, Inc.","Apple Inc.","Google LLC"],"class_counsel":["Edelson PC"],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"Richard A. Paez, Jennifer Sung (Circuit Judges), Sidney A. Fitzwater (N.D. Tex., by designation)"},"claims":["28 U.S.C. 1292(b) appellate jurisdiction","47 U.S.C. 230"],"status":"dismissed","status_date":"2024-05-21","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"USD","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2024/05/21/22-16888.pdf"],"regulator":"","press":["https://epic.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Plaintiffs-Appellees-Response-Brief.pdf","https://epic.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/ca9-2022-16916-009034108483.pdf"]},"summary":"A motions panel allowed the platforms' interlocutory appeals of the 2022 Section 230 order (order granting interlocutory review 13 December 2022; appeals 22-16888/22-16889 Meta, 22-16914/22-16916 Apple, 22-16921/22-16923 Google) over the plaintiffs' objection; after argument on 8 April 2024 the merits panel dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal for lack of jurisdiction on 21 May 2024 (unpublished, 2024 WL 2287200), vacated the 13 December 2022 order and remanded to Judge Davila, lifting the stay in Horn v. Amazon.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-US-0015","GL-US-0016","GL-US-0017","GL-US-0019","GL-US-0014"],"sources":[{"claim":"dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, 21 May 2024, 2024 WL 2287200","url":"https://epic.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Plaintiffs-Appellees-Response-Brief.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"Ninth Circuit dismissed the consolidated appeal on 21 May 2024 (Horn Dkt. 36)","url":"https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/lbpgdljjdvq/W.D.Wash._2_23-cv-01727-RSL_131_0.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"memorandum of 21 May 2024: appeal numbers, district case numbers, argued 8 Apr 2024, panel Paez, Sung, Fitzwater, dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, vacated the 13 Dec 2022 order, not for publication","url":"https://hallapproved.com/us/cases/ca9/2024/9505980/","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary","note":"copy of the Ninth Circuit memorandum"},{"claim":"memorandum filed 21 May 2024 (Ninth Circuit archive): Nos. 22-16888/22-16889 (Meta, D.C. 5:21-cv-02777-EJD), 22-16914/22-16916 (Apple, 5:21-md-02985-EJD), Google appeals; argued and submitted 8 Apr 2024; Paez, Sung, Fitzwater; appeal and cross-appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; order granting permission to appeal vacated; not for publication","url":"https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2024/05/21/22-16888.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"open":[],"status_read_from_records":true,"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/social-casino/in-re-facebook-simulated-casino-style-games-ninth-circuit-2024/"},{"id":"GL-US-0200","slug":"armstead-v-vgw-malta-chumba-luckyland-kentucky-settlement","title":"Armstead v. VGW Malta Ltd.","short_name":"Chumba Casino / LuckyLand Slots Kentucky settlement (USD 11.75M)","aliases":["chumba casino class action lawsuit","chumba casino settlement","chumba casino class action lawsuit payout per person","luckyland slots settlement","vgw kentucky settlement"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"US","state":"KY","court":"Henderson County Circuit Court, Commonwealth of Kentucky","level":"first-instance"},"docket":"2022-CI-00553","filed":"2022","category":"sweepstakes-casino","case_type":"class-action","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Kentucky residents who spent USD 5 or more at Chumba Casino or Luckyland Slots within a 24-hour period between 2017-03-17 and 2022-03-17","defendants":["VGW Malta Ltd."],"class_counsel":["Bursor & Fisher PA (Philip L. Fraietta, Alec M. Leslie)"],"defense_counsel":["Paul Hastings LLP (Behnam Dayanim)"],"judge":""},"claims":["Kentucky Loss Recovery Act (KRS 372) recovery of gambling losses","Kentucky gambling law"],"status":"claims-closed","status_date":"2023-03-06","money":{"fund":11750000,"currency":"USD","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"varies; pro rata on net losses","payout_formula":"proportional share of the net fund (fund minus attorney fees, costs and class representative awards) based on each claimant's documented losses in the class period; the administrator ran a payment estimator on VGWGamesSettlement.com","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"2023-03-06","exclusion_deadline":"2022-12-15","final_approval_hearing":"2023-01-09","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"","administrator":"https://www.vgwgamessettlement.com/","claim_form":"","orders":[],"regulator":"","press":["https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/closed-settlements/chumba-casino-luckyland-slots-11-75m-class-action-lawsuit-settlement/"]},"summary":"Kentucky class action alleging that VGW's sale of virtual coins at Chumba Casino and Luckyland Slots was illegal gambling under Kentucky law. VGW Malta settled for USD 11.75 million without admitting wrongdoing; final approval was heard on 2023-01-09 and claims closed on 2023-03-06. It is the only completed cash settlement by VGW in the United States and the reference point for every 'Chumba payout per person' query.","significance":"largest-settlement","related_cases":["GL-US-0201","GL-US-0225"],"sources":[{"claim":"case name, court, docket 2022-CI-00553, fund USD 11.75M, class definition, deadlines, administrator JND, counsel","url":"https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/closed-settlements/chumba-casino-luckyland-slots-11-75m-class-action-lawsuit-settlement/","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"settlement administrator site VGWGamesSettlement.com (JND Legal Administration)","url":"https://www.vgwgamessettlement.com/","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"open":["Top Class Actions gives the complaint date as 2022-09-07 and the final approval hearing as 2023-01-09; neither the Henderson Circuit Court docket (Kentucky CourtNet is paid) nor a final approval order could be retrieved, so filing date stays at the year and final approval is unconfirmed","attorney fee award amount not found","actual average payout per claimant not published; administrator site offline or not retrievable on 2026-11-14","final approval order PDF not retrieved"],"status_read_from_records":false,"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/sweepstakes-casino/armstead-v-vgw-malta-chumba-luckyland-kentucky-settlement/"},{"id":"GL-US-1012","slug":"zajonc-v-electronic-arts-dynamic-difficulty","title":"Zajonc et al. v. Electronic Arts Inc.","short_name":"Zajonc v. EA (dynamic difficulty and loot boxes)","aliases":["ea dynamic difficulty lawsuit","zajonc v electronic arts","fifa 21 scripting lawsuit"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"US","state":"CA","court":"U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California","level":"first-instance"},"docket":"3:20-cv-07871","filed":"2020-11-09","category":"loot-boxes","case_type":"class-action","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Jason Zajonc, Danyael Williams and Pranko Lozano for FIFA, Madden and NHL Ultimate Team players","defendants":["Electronic Arts Inc."],"class_counsel":["Law Office of Jack Fitzgerald PC","Law Office of Paul K. Joseph PC"],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"William Alsup (reassigned from Joseph C. Spero)"},"claims":["California UCL, CLRA and false advertising: undisclosed Dynamic Difficulty Adjustment allegedly pushes players to buy Ultimate Team packs"],"status":"withdrawn","status_date":"2021-02-11","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"USD","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.368570/gov.uscourts.cand.368570.22.0.pdf","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.368570/gov.uscourts.cand.368570.22.0.pdf"],"regulator":"","press":["https://www.videogameschronicle.com/news/ea-loot-box-lawsuit-dropped-after-company-convinces-lawyers-it-doesnt-adjust-difficulty/"]},"summary":"Three players alleged EA's patented Dynamic Difficulty Adjustment secretly rigs match difficulty to drive Ultimate Team pack purchases. After EA showed counsel engineering evidence that DDA is not used in Ultimate Team modes, the plaintiffs filed a Rule 41 notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice on 11 February 2021.","significance":"routine","related_cases":["GL-US-1011"],"sources":[{"claim":"complaint filed 9 November 2020, case 3:20-cv-07871-JCS, plaintiffs, DDA theory","url":"https://www.truthinadvertising.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Zajonc-v-Electronic-Arts-complaint.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice filed 11 February 2021 (Dkt. 22), counsel","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.368570/gov.uscourts.cand.368570.22.0.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"dismissal followed EA's demonstration that DDA is not used in Ultimate Team","url":"https://www.videogameschronicle.com/news/ea-loot-box-lawsuit-dropped-after-company-convinces-lawyers-it-doesnt-adjust-difficulty/","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"}],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/loot-boxes/zajonc-v-electronic-arts-dynamic-difficulty/"},{"id":"GL-US-1011","slug":"ramirez-v-electronic-arts-ultimate-team","title":"Ramirez v. Electronic Arts Inc.","short_name":"Ramirez v. EA (FIFA and Madden Ultimate Team packs)","aliases":["ea ultimate team lawsuit","fifa ultimate team gambling lawsuit","ramirez v electronic arts","ea loot box class action california"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"US","state":"CA","court":"U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Jose)","level":"first-instance"},"docket":"5:20-cv-05672-BLF","filed":"2020-10-13","category":"loot-boxes","case_type":"class-action","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Kevin Ramirez (FIFA player since 2011, Madden NFL since 2013) for a proposed class of Ultimate Team pack buyers","defendants":["Electronic Arts Inc."],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"Beth Labson Freeman"},"claims":["California UCL","California CLRA","unjust enrichment (Ultimate Team Packs as an illegal slot machine or device under Penal Code 330(d))"],"status":"withdrawn","status_date":"2023-02-23","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"USD","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"complaint sought more than USD 5 million for the class","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cand-5_20-cv-05672/pdf/USCOURTS-cand-5_20-cv-05672-0.pdf","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cand-5_20-cv-05672/pdf/USCOURTS-cand-5_20-cv-05672-0.pdf"],"regulator":"","press":["https://www.gamechangerslaw.com/p/brief-update-ea-and-sony-both-win"]},"summary":"The first US class action calling EA's Ultimate Team packs gambling. On 5 March 2021 Judge Freeman compelled individual arbitration because the EA User Agreement accepted on installation incorporates the AAA Commercial Rules, delegating even the McGill public-injunction argument to the arbitrator, and stayed the case. The parties stipulated to a voluntary dismissal without prejudice on 23 February 2023; no arbitration award is public.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-US-1012","GL-CA-0020","GL-AT-0512"],"sources":[{"claim":"order of 5 March 2021 compelling arbitration and staying the case; complaint filed 13 October 2020; Penal Code 330(d) theory; three class claims","url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cand-5_20-cv-05672/pdf/USCOURTS-cand-5_20-cv-05672-0.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"joint stipulation of voluntary dismissal approved 23 February 2023","url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17443961/ramirez-v-electronic-arts-inc/","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"USD 5 million demand as reported at filing","url":"https://www.gamespot.com/articles/new-lawsuit-against-ea-claims-that-fifa-ultimate-t/1100-6481023/","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"}],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/loot-boxes/ramirez-v-electronic-arts-ultimate-team/"},{"id":"GL-US-0873","slug":"owens-v-mgm-resorts-international-data-breach-settlement","title":"Owens et al. v. MGM Resorts International (and In re MGM Resorts International Data Breach Litigation)","short_name":"MGM Resorts $45 million data breach settlement","aliases":["mgm data breach settlement","mgm resorts 45 million settlement claim","mgm cyberattack 2023 class action payout","mgmdatasettlement.com"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"US","state":"NV","court":"U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada","level":"first-instance"},"docket":"2:20-cv-00376-GMN-NJK (In re MGM Resorts International Data Breach Litigation); 2:23-cv-01480-GMN-NJK (Owens et al. v. MGM Resorts International)","filed":"2020-02","category":"data-breach","case_type":"class-action","parties":{"plaintiffs":"US residents whose personal information was exposed in the July 2019 breach (about 10.6 million guest records) or the September 2023 cyberattack, and anyone MGM notified","defendants":["MGM Resorts International"],"class_counsel":["John Yanchunis, Morgan & Morgan Complex Litigation Group","E. Michelle Drake, Berger Montague","Doug McNamara, Cohen Milstein","David Berger, Gibbs Law Group","J. Gerard Stranch IV, Stranch Jennings & Garvey","Lynn Toops, Cohen & Malad","James Pizzirusso, Hausfeld","Gary M. Klinger, Milberg","Jeff Ostrow, Kopelowitz Ostrow"],"defense_counsel":["Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP"],"judge":"Gloria M. Navarro"},"claims":["Negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, state consumer-protection statutes"],"status":"settled-final","status_date":"2025-06-18","money":{"fund":45000000,"currency":"USD","attorney_fees":"requested 30 percent of the fund (13,500,000) plus costs; award not verified","payout_estimate":"about 75 per claimant whose SSN or military ID was exposed; about 50 for passport or driver's licence; about 20 for name, address or date of birth; documented losses up to 15000","payout_formula":"tiered flat payments by data type plus documented-loss claims up to $15,000, adjusted pro rata if the net fund is exhausted; alternative one year of credit monitoring","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"2025-06-03","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"","administrator":"https://mgmdatasettlement.com/","claim_form":"","orders":[],"regulator":"","press":["https://www.ktnv.com/news/mgm-resorts-settles-class-action-lawsuit-over-cyber-attacks-in-2019-2023","https://www.claimdepot.com/settlements/mgm-resorts-data-settlement"]},"summary":"The 2019 breach (guest data later posted on hacking forums) and the September 2023 Scattered Spider ransomware attack that took MGM's Strip systems down for ten days were settled together for $45 million, administered by Epiq. Final approval was granted on 18 June 2025 after a 3 June 2025 claims deadline; payments were due by the end of 2025. Largest casino data-breach settlement to date and the yardstick for the Caesars, Boyd, Station and Wynn cases.","significance":"largest-settlement","related_cases":["GL-US-0874","GL-US-0876","GL-US-0877","GL-US-0878"],"sources":[{"retrieved":"2026-11-14","claim":"case number 2:23-cv-01480-GMN, $45M, administrator Epiq, deadlines, tiers, final approval 18 June 2025","url":"https://www.claimdepot.com/settlements/mgm-resorts-data-settlement"},{"retrieved":"2026-11-14","claim":"settlement announced, both incidents covered","url":"https://www.ktnv.com/news/mgm-resorts-settles-class-action-lawsuit-over-cyber-attacks-in-2019-2023"},{"claim":"Proposed long-form notice, Case 2:23-cv-01480-GMN-NJK Doc. 62-1 filed 17 Jan 2025 (preliminary approval motion exhibit): Judge Navarro oversees the combined settlement of 2:20-cv-00376-GMN-NJK and 2:23-cv-01480; USD 45,000,000 fund; fee request 30 percent; service awards 10,000 / 3,500; nine class counsel firms led by John Yanchunis (Morgan & Morgan)","url":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/642f23e5f54b794300ac12a6/679aa23ac025e27b14fefc53_M37F3O-ueVNAtuUv0F1D_owRV00qqzyKlwIlsUGQrTI.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"notice section 15","url":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/642f23e5f54b794300ac12a6/679aa23ac025e27b14fefc53_M37F3O-ueVNAtuUv0F1D_owRV00qqzyKlwIlsUGQrTI.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"notice objection table","url":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/642f23e5f54b794300ac12a6/679aa23ac025e27b14fefc53_M37F3O-ueVNAtuUv0F1D_owRV00qqzyKlwIlsUGQrTI.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"'They will seek 30% of the Settlement Fund in attorneys' fees'","url":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/642f23e5f54b794300ac12a6/679aa23ac025e27b14fefc53_M37F3O-ueVNAtuUv0F1D_owRV00qqzyKlwIlsUGQrTI.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"claim deadline 3 June (2025) via mgmdatasettlement.com; Judge Navarro granted preliminary approval in January 2025; tiers 75/50/20","url":"https://cdcgaming.com/brief/heres-how-to-claim-your-share-of-the-mgm-data-breach-settlement/","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"}],"open":["Final approval hearing 18 June 2025, fee award and payments from 12 Dec 2025 (credit-monitoring codes from 16 Dec 2025) per claimdepot only; preliminary approval motion filed 17 Jan 2025 (Doc. 62), order granted in January 2025 (cdcgaming 27 Jan 2025), exact date unverified; claim deadline 3 June 2025 on secondary sources, the 19 May 2025 date is unexplained; administrator Epiq per claimdepot"],"status_read_from_records":false,"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/data-breach/owens-v-mgm-resorts-international-data-breach-settlement/"},{"id":"GL-US-0004","slug":"benson-v-doubledown-interactive","title":"Benson v. DoubleDown Interactive, LLC and International Game Technology","short_name":"DoubleDown Casino settlement","aliases":["doubledown casino settlement","doubledown class action","doubledown settlement payout","benson v doubledown"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"US","state":"WA","court":"U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington","level":"first-instance"},"docket":"2:18-cv-00525","filed":"2018-04-09","category":"social-casino","case_type":"class-action","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Adrienne Benson and Mary Simonson; all individuals in the United States who played DoubleDown Casino, DoubleDown Fort Knox, DoubleDown Classic or Ellen's Road to Riches on or before preliminary approval of the settlement (November 2022)","defendants":["DoubleDown Interactive, LLC","International Game Technology","IGT"],"class_counsel":["Edelson PC","Tousley Brain Stephens PLLC"],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"Ronald B. Leighton (2018-2020); Robert S. Lasnik"},"claims":["RCW 4.24.070","RCW 19.86","unjust enrichment"],"status":"settled-final","status_date":"2023-06-01","money":{"fund":415000000,"currency":"USD","attorney_fees":121485000,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"Net fund = USD 415M minus USD 121,485,000 fees (29.3%) minus administration (cap USD 3M) minus USD 15,000 incentive awards, about USD 290M; paid pro rata on lifetime in-app spend with escalating marginal tiers; estimate = lifetime spend x tier rate x (net fund / sum of approved claims).","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"2023-04-11","exclusion_deadline":"2023-02-14","final_approval_hearing":"2023-06-01","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Washington_Western_District_Court/2--18-cv-00525/Benson_v._Double_Down_Interactive_LLC_et_al/","administrator":"https://www.doubledownsettlement.com/","claim_form":"","orders":["https://truthinadvertising.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Benson-v-DoubleDown-final-approval-order.pdf","https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2020/01/29/18-36015.pdf"],"regulator":"","press":["https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1799567/000119312522232799/d378008dex991.htm","https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/closed-settlements/doubledown-interactive-casino-games-415m-class-action-settlement/"]},"summary":"Filed 9 April 2018 after Kater. DoubleDown's motion to compel arbitration was denied and the denial affirmed by the Ninth Circuit (29 January 2020). On 29 August 2022 DoubleDown Interactive (USD 145.25M) and IGT subsidiaries (USD 269.75M) agreed to a USD 415 million nationwide fund, the largest social casino settlement; unopposed motion for preliminary approval filed 11 November 2022 (Dkt. 507), preliminary approval November 2022 (Dkt. 511), claims due 11 April 2023, final approval 1 June 2023 (Dkt. 549, Judge Lasnik) with USD 121,485,000 in fees, administration costs up to USD 3,000,000, seven exclusions and no objections. Administered by JND Legal Administration (DoubleDownSettlement.com, now redirecting to JND's inactive-case page); distributions in 2023 and 2024 are reported by claimants, not in the record read.","significance":"largest-settlement","related_cases":["GL-US-0005","GL-US-0021","GL-US-0014"],"sources":[{"claim":"final approval 1 June 2023, Dkt. 549, class definition, fees USD 121,485,000, administration cap USD 3M, incentive awards USD 7,500 each, 7 exclusions, no objections","url":"https://truthinadvertising.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Benson-v-DoubleDown-final-approval-order.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"USD 415M split IGT USD 269.75M and DDI USD 145.25M, announced 29 Aug 2022","url":"https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1799567/000119312522232799/d378008dex991.htm","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"JND Legal Administration, DoubleDownSettlement.com, exclusion deadline 14 Feb 2023, claim deadline 11 Apr 2023, games covered","url":"https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/closed-settlements/doubledown-interactive-casino-games-415m-class-action-settlement/","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"filed 9 April 2018; preliminary approval 15 Nov 2022 (Dkt. 511)","url":"https://www.classaction.org/media/ferrando-et-al-v-zynga-inc-motion-for-settlement-approval.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"final DDI payment of USD 95.3 million made in Q2 2023","url":"https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1799567/000162828026022395/ddi-20251231.htm","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"Dkt. 507 unopposed motion for preliminary approval filed 11 Nov 2022, Case 18-cv-525-RSL, Judge Lasnik","url":"https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Washington_Western_District_Court/2--18-cv-00525/Benson_v._Double_Down_Interactive_LLC_et_al/","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary","note":"Docket Alarm index page"},{"claim":"DoubleDownSettlement.com now redirects to inactivecase.jndla.net (\"This case is no longer active\")","url":"https://inactivecase.jndla.net/","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"open":["number of claims filed and official distribution totals","payment dates and amounts: reader reports to Top Class Actions (first distribution October 2023 up to USD 806,831.91; second distribution March-April 2024 up to USD 5,978.66) are not administrator or docket figures","preliminary approval date: Top Class Actions gives 14 Nov 2022, the Zynga final-approval motion cites Dkt. 511 of 15 Nov 2022","DoubleDown 20-F FY2025 statement on the final DDI payment (USD 95.3M, Q2 2023) not located in the excerpts read this session"],"status_read_from_records":true,"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/social-casino/benson-v-doubledown-interactive/"},{"id":"GL-US-0010","slug":"larsen-v-ptt-high-5-games","title":"Larsen v. PTT, LLC d/b/a High 5 Games and High 5 Entertainment, LLC","short_name":"High 5 Games Washington verdict","aliases":["high 5 casino lawsuit","high 5 games verdict","larsen v ptt","high 5 games 25 million"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"US","state":"WA","court":"U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington (Tacoma)","level":"first-instance"},"docket":"3:18-cv-05275","filed":"2018-04-06","category":"social-casino","case_type":"class-action","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Rick Larsen (substituted 8 March 2023 for original plaintiff Sean Wilson); certified Damages Class (21 January 2021, Dkt. 142/170) of Washington purchasers of virtual coins in High 5 Casino or High 5 Vegas after 9 April 2014; settlement class: all individuals in Washington who played or purchased virtual coins in either app after 9 April 2014 and before 1 October 2022","defendants":["PTT, LLC d/b/a High 5 Games","High 5 Entertainment, LLC"],"class_counsel":["Edelson PC (Todd Logan)","Tousley Brain Stephens PLLC (Cecily Jordan)"],"defense_counsel":["Holland & Hart LLP","Carney Badley Spellman"],"judge":"Tiffany M. Cartwright"},"claims":["RCW 4.24.070","RCW 19.86","unjust enrichment"],"status":"claims-open","status_date":"2026-08-14","money":{"fund":12000000,"currency":"USD","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"Settlement Fund of at least USD 12,000,000 and not more than USD 30,000,000 paid over a multi-year period: USD 4,000,000 initial payment within 15 days of preliminary approval, baseline annual payments of at least USD 1,000,000 (or 20% of audited net income, capped at USD 2,000,000) for up to eight years, contingent net income payments and liquidity-event payments; shares pro rata on in-app purchases 9 April 2014 to 30 September 2022, scaled by the number of valid claims and the amounts actually paid in, distributed in more than one round; deductions: fee request up to 35%, administration up to USD 150,000, service award up to USD 15,000. Estimate = member spend / total claimed spend x net amount paid in.","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":"24928712.17"},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"2027-01-04","exclusion_deadline":"2027-01-04","final_approval_hearing":"2027-02-08","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://dockets.justia.com/docket/washington/wawdce/3:2018cv05275/257966","administrator":"https://www.high5lawsuit.com/","claim_form":"","orders":["https://classaction.org/media/larsen-v-ptt-llc-et-al-summary-judgment-order.pdf","https://www.classaction.org/media/high-5-pao.pdf","https://www.classaction.org/media/high-5-settlement.pdf","https://www.classaction.org/media/high-5-long-notice.pdf"],"regulator":"https://wsgc.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2025-01/Re%20social%20casino.pdf","press":["https://casinobeats.com/2025/02/11/washington-jury-orders-high-5-games-to-pay-24-9m-in-landmark-social-casino-lawsuit/","https://www.classaction.org/news/jury-awards-nearly-25m-to-high-5-casino-players-in-mobile-gambling-app-lawsuit"]},"summary":"The only 2018 Washington case that went to trial. Filed 6 April 2018 as Wilson v. PTT, LLC; classes certified 21 January 2021 (Dkt. 142/170); partial summary judgment on 11 June 2024 held High 5 Casino and High 5 Vegas are illegal gambling under Washington law. After a four-day trial the jury returned its verdict on 7 February 2025: USD 17,742,855.64 actual and USD 7,185,856.53 enhanced CPA damages for the class and USD 7,470.50 plus USD 4,183.48 for Larsen; on 11 June 2025 Judge Cartwright denied the motion to vacate and entered judgment for USD 24,928,712.17 (class) and USD 11,653.98 (Larsen), the first class-action judgment against a social casino. High 5 moved to stay enforcement (11 August 2025) and for relief from judgment (12 August 2025); after mediation and an independent forensic review the parties signed a term sheet on 14 April 2026 and a settlement agreement (Dkt. 724-1, filed 4 August 2026) for USD 12-30 million paid over up to eight years. Preliminary approval 14 August 2026 (JND Legal Administration, High5Lawsuit.com); the administrator site now lists claims, exclusions and objections due 4 January 2027 and the final approval hearing on 8 February 2027 (the order set 13 November and 14 December 2026).","significance":"first-of-kind","related_cases":["GL-US-0002","GL-US-0020"],"sources":[{"claim":"complaint filed 6 April 2018; classes certified 21 Jan 2021 (Dkt. 142, 170); decertification denied (Dkt. 385); partial summary judgment order dated 11 June 2024, Case 3:18-cv-05275-TMC","url":"https://classaction.org/media/larsen-v-ptt-llc-et-al-summary-judgment-order.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"settlement agreement Dkt. 724-1 filed 4 Aug 2026: verdict 7 Feb 2025 (class USD 17,742,855.64 + USD 7,185,856.53; plaintiff USD 7,470.50 + USD 4,183.48), judgment 11 June 2025 USD 24,928,712.17 and USD 11,653.98, post-trial motions 9 July, 11 Aug, 12 Aug 2025, mediation 13 Aug 2025, term sheet 14 Apr 2026, fund USD 12M-30M, payment schedule, JND Legal Administration, class definition","url":"https://www.classaction.org/media/high-5-settlement.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"order granting preliminary approval dated 14 Aug 2026 (Judge Cartwright): JND appointed, Kroll transfers High5Lawsuit.com, claims and objection/exclusion deadline 13 Nov 2026, final approval hearing 14 Dec 2026","url":"https://www.classaction.org/media/high-5-pao.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"long-form notice: USD 12,000,000 to USD 30,000,000, USD 4,000,000 initial payment, at least USD 1,000,000 per year, class period 9 Apr 2014 to 1 Oct 2022, payments in more than one round","url":"https://www.classaction.org/media/high-5-long-notice.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary","note":"administrator notice, copy hosted by classaction.org"},{"claim":"administrator site: claim, exclusion and objection deadline 4 Jan 2027, final approval hearing 8 Feb 2027, JND Legal Administration, class period 9 Apr 2014 to 1 Oct 2022","url":"https://www.high5lawsuit.com/","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"docket 3:18-cv-05275-TMC cited by the Gambling Commission (January 2025 letter)","url":"https://wsgc.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2025-01/Re%20social%20casino.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"court denied High 5's post-trial bid to set aside or reduce the USD 7.2M enhanced damages (report of 12 June 2025)","url":"https://www.law360.com/articles/2352615","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"Settlement Insight list: 'Wilson v. PTT LLC', W.D. Wash. 2:22-cv-00091, filed Jan 27, 2022, closed Mar 6, 2023, listed separately from Larsen v. PTT 3:18-cv-05275-TMC","url":"https://settlementinsight.com/sweepstakes-casino-lawsuits","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary","note":"benchmark lead; used only to keep the two dockets apart"},{"claim":"Order granting plaintiff's motion to continue settlement deadlines by fifty-two days, Dkt. 732, filed 10 Sep 2026 (Judge Cartwright): basis of the 4 Jan 2027 claim/exclusion/objection deadline and the 8 Feb 2027 hearing shown by the administrator","url":"https://assets-us-01.kc-usercontent.com/1eeb16db-4934-006e-40a6-38fa91285ebb/00dbacb5-175f-447a-8031-6f91132bbed4/Order%20Granting%20Plaintiffs%20Motion%20to%20Continue%20Settlement%20Deadlines%20by%20Fifty-Two%20Days.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"verdict total USD 24,940,366.15, liability summary judgment 2024, class counsel Edelson","url":"https://edelson.com/jury-returns-first-ever-class-action-verdict-against-illegal-online-casino-operator/","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"judge Tiffany M. Cartwright, USD 17.7M damages plus USD 7.2M enhanced damages","url":"https://www.covers.com/industry/high-5-games-to-pay-25-million-after-washington-illegal-gambling-lawsuit-feb-11-2025","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"summary judgment holdings (thing of value, Kater reasoning), damages amount reserved for trial","url":"https://www.joneswalker.com/en/insights/blogs/perspectives/washington-district-court-rules-against-social-casino-operator.html?id=102j9wv","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"settlement site: caption, case 3:18-cv-05275, class definition and period, contingent multi-year fund, deadlines 2027-01-04, hearing 2027-02-08, JND administrator, claim portal","url":"https://www.high5lawsuit.com/","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"preliminary approval 2026-08-14, fund range USD 12M to 30M (benchmark, unverified)","url":"https://settlementinsight.com/sweepstakes-casino-lawsuits","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, No. 3:18-cv-05275-TMC, dated 2026-08-14 (Judge Tiffany M. Cartwright): settlement class definition; class certified 2021-01-21 (Dkt. 170), decertification denied 2024-04-17 (Dkt. 385); class counsel Edelson PC and Tousley Brain Stephens; fund minimum USD 12M / maximum USD 30M, non-reversionary, secured; JND Legal Administration appointed; original schedule: notice within 35 days, claims and objection/exclusion deadline 2026-11-13, fee motion by 2026-10-30, final approval hearing 2026-12-14 09:30; court may extend deadlines with changes posted on the settlement website","url":"https://www.classaction.org/media/high-5-pao.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"Settlement Agreement (Dkt. 724-1): Settlement Fund USD 12M to USD 30M inclusive of initial payment (USD 4M), baseline annual payments (USD 1M or 20% of audited net income), contingent net income payments and liquidity payments; fee request not more than 35% plus costs; incentive award not more than USD 15,000; USD 12M and USD 30M stipulated consent judgments","url":"https://www.classaction.org/media/high-5-settlement.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"FAQ page: case caption and number, JND Legal Administration, contact 1-888-663-1726","url":"https://www.high5lawsuit.com/faq","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"schedule pushed back: claim, exclusion and objection deadline moved from 2026-11-13 to 2027-01-04 and the final approval hearing from 2026-12-14 to 2027-02-08; USD 12M to 30M fund; USD 4M then at least USD 1M a year for up to eight years; fee request up to 35%; incentive award up to USD 15,000; judge Tiffany M. Cartwright (page updated 2026-10-01)","url":"https://openclassactions.com/settlements/high-5-games-social-casino-class-action-settlement.php","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"docket index Wilson/Larsen v. PTT, LLC 3:2018cv05275: judgment on the jury verdict entered June 2025 awarding the class USD 17,742,855.64 in actual damages plus enhanced damages","url":"https://dockets.justia.com/docket/washington/wawdce/3:2018cv05275/257966","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"}],"open":["fee petition (due 14 days before the objection deadline) and the court's fee award","notice of appeal from the 11 June 2025 judgment (none found; Rule 62 stay motion 11 Aug 2025)","press figure USD 24,940,366.15 = class judgment USD 24,928,712.17 plus Larsen's USD 11,653.98","status set to claims-open on 2026-11-14 from the merged GL-US-0203 record (claim period open until 2027-01-04); confirm final approval date"],"status_read_from_records":true,"_units":["us-social-casino","us-sweepstakes"],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/social-casino/larsen-v-ptt-high-5-games/"},{"id":"GL-US-1007","slug":"ftc-v-csgo-lotto-martin-cassell","title":"In the Matter of CSGOLotto, Inc., Trevor Martin and Thomas Cassell","short_name":"FTC CSGO Lotto consent order","aliases":["csgo lotto ftc","tmartn ftc settlement","syndicate csgo lotto","ftc influencer skin gambling"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"US","state":"","court":"Federal Trade Commission (administrative consent order)","level":"regulatory-court"},"docket":"C-4632","filed":"2017-09-07","category":"loot-boxes","case_type":"regulator-v-operator","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Federal Trade Commission","defendants":["CSGOLotto, Inc.","Trevor Martin (TmarTn)","Thomas Cassell (TheSyndicateProject)"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":""},"claims":["Section 5 FTC Act, deceptive endorsements (undisclosed ownership of the skin-gambling site they promoted; paid influencers USD 2,500 to 55,000 without disclosure)"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2017-11-28","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"USD","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"no monetary relief; order runs to 28 November 2037","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/1623184_c-_csgolotto_decision_and_order.pdf","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/1623184_c-_csgolotto_decision_and_order.pdf"],"regulator":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2017/11/ftc-approves-final-consent-order-against-owners-csgo-lotto-website","press":[]},"summary":"The FTC's only action arising from CS:GO skin gambling and its first against individual social-media influencers. Martin and Cassell promoted CSGO Lotto, a site where players wagered skins and the house took an 8 percent fee, without disclosing that they owned it. The consent order (file 162-3184, Docket C-4632, issued 28 November 2017) bars misrepresenting endorsers as independent, requires disclosures and compliance reporting for ten years, and imposes no fine; it terminates on 28 November 2037. The FTC did not address whether skin gambling itself is illegal.","significance":"first-of-kind","related_cases":["GL-US-1005"],"sources":[{"claim":"Decision and Order, Docket C-4632, FTC file 162-3184, respondents, terms, 20-year sunset (28 November 2037)","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/1623184_c-_csgolotto_decision_and_order.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"proposed order announced 7 September 2017; final approval November 2017; 8 percent fee; influencer payments USD 2,500 to 55,000; no fine","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2017/11/ftc-approves-final-consent-order-against-owners-csgo-lotto-website","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/loot-boxes/ftc-v-csgo-lotto-martin-cassell/"},{"id":"GL-US-0882","slug":"ftc-v-draftkings-fanduel-merger","title":"Federal Trade Commission, California and District of Columbia v. DraftKings, Inc. and FanDuel Limited","short_name":"FTC challenge to the DraftKings-FanDuel merger (abandoned 2017)","aliases":["ftc draftkings fanduel merger","draftkings fanduel merger blocked 2017","daily fantasy sports monopoly ftc"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"US","state":"DC","court":"U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (preliminary injunction); FTC administrative proceeding","level":"regulatory-court"},"docket":"FTC Docket No. 9375 (Matter 161 0174, administrative); D.D.C. 1:17-cv-01195 (TRO/PI complaint filed 2017-06-19)","filed":"2017-06-19","category":"antitrust","case_type":"regulator-v-operator","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Federal Trade Commission; Attorneys General of California and the District of Columbia","defendants":["DraftKings, Inc.","FanDuel Limited"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":""},"claims":["Clayton Act s. 7 and FTC Act s. 5: the merger would give one firm more than 90 percent of the US paid daily fantasy sports market"],"status":"dismissed","status_date":"2017-07-14","money":{"fund":"","currency":"USD","attorney_fees":"","payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/cases-proceedings/161-0174-draftkings-inc-fanduel-limited-matter","https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/cases-proceedings/161-0174-draftkings-fanduel-ftc-state-california-district-columbia-v"],"regulator":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2017/06/ftc-two-state-attorneys-general-challenge-proposed-merger-two-largest-daily-fantasy-sports-sites","press":[]},"summary":"On 19 June 2017 the FTC voted 2-0 to sue in D.D.C. for a preliminary injunction and issued an administrative complaint (trial set for 21 November 2017). The companies abandoned the merger in July 2017 rather than litigate. The only US merger challenge in the gambling-adjacent sector to date and the reason the two firms still compete.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":[],"sources":[{"retrieved":"2026-11-14","claim":"date, court, co-plaintiffs, 90 percent share, administrative trial date, 2-0 vote","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2017/06/ftc-two-state-attorneys-general-challenge-proposed-merger-two-largest-daily-fantasy-sports-sites"},{"claim":"federal case number 1:17-cv-01195, complaint 19 June 2017; 13 July 2017 statement on abandonment","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/cases-proceedings/161-0174-draftkings-fanduel-ftc-state-california-district-columbia-v","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"Joint Motion to Dismiss Complaint 13 July 2017; Commission Order Dismissing Complaint 14 July 2017","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/cases-proceedings/161-0174-draftkings-inc-fanduel-limited-matter","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"Commission Order Dismissing Complaint dated 14 July 2017","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/cases-proceedings/161-0174-draftkings-inc-fanduel-limited-matter","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"case pages with the docket timeline","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/cases-proceedings/161-0174-draftkings-inc-fanduel-limited-matter","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"open":[],"status_read_from_records":true,"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/antitrust/ftc-v-draftkings-fanduel-merger/"},{"id":"GL-US-0829","slug":"mgm-resorts-v-malloy-connecticut-tribal-casino","title":"MGM Resorts International Global Gaming Development, LLC v. Malloy","short_name":"MGM v. Connecticut (East Windsor casino law)","aliases":["mgm v malloy second circuit","connecticut special act 15-7 lawsuit","mgm springfield connecticut tribal casino lawsuit"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"US","state":"CT","court":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit","level":"appeal"},"docket":"D. Conn. 3:15-cv-01182 (AWT); 2d Cir. 16-2158-cv","filed":"2015-08","category":"licensing-administrative","case_type":"constitutional","parties":{"plaintiffs":"MGM Resorts International Global Gaming Development, LLC","defendants":["Dannel P. Malloy, Governor","Denise Merrill, Secretary of the State","Jonathan A. Harris, Commissioner of Consumer Protection"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"Alvin W. Thompson (D. Conn.); Walker, Sack, Chin (2d Cir.)"},"claims":["Equal Protection and dormant Commerce Clause challenge to Special Act 15-7, which let only the Mashantucket Pequot and Mohegan tribes pursue a commercial casino"],"status":"dismissed","status_date":"2017-06-21","money":{"fund":"","currency":"USD","attorney_fees":"","payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/OPN/16-2158_amd_opn.pdf","https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/16-2158/16-2158-2017-06-21.html"],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"MGM, building MGM Springfield across the border, attacked Connecticut's tribal-only casino siting law. The Second Circuit (861 F.3d 40, 21 June 2017, amended 2 August 2017) affirmed dismissal for lack of standing: MGM alleged no concrete plan to build in Connecticut and its Massachusetts exclusivity barred most Connecticut sites, so any competitive injury was speculative.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":[],"sources":[{"retrieved":"2026-11-14","claim":"citation 861 F.3d 40, decision and amendment dates, standing holding","url":"https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/16-2158/16-2158-2017-06-21.html"},{"claim":"argued 28 Nov 2016, decided 21 June 2017, amended 2 Aug 2017; appeal from D. Conn. No. 3:15 Civ. 1182 (Alvin W. Thompson, J.); panel Walker, Sack, Chin; affirmed dismissal for lack of standing","url":"https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/OPN/16-2158_amd_opn.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"caption","url":"https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/OPN/16-2158_amd_opn.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"open":[],"status_read_from_records":true,"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/licensing-administrative/mgm-resorts-v-malloy-connecticut-tribal-casino/"},{"id":"GL-US-0001","slug":"kater-v-churchill-downs","title":"Kater v. Churchill Downs Incorporated (Big Fish Casino)","short_name":"Big Fish Casino settlement","aliases":["big fish casino settlement","big fish games class action","kater v churchill downs","big fish casino lawsuit washington"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"US","state":"WA","court":"U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington","level":"first-instance"},"docket":"2:15-cv-00612","filed":"2015-04-17","category":"social-casino","case_type":"class-action","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Cheryl Kater and Suzie Kelly (Kater) with Manasa Thimmegowda (Thimmegowda); settlement class: all persons in the United States who played Big Fish Casino, Jackpot Magic Slots or Epic Diamond Slots on or before preliminary approval of the settlement (31 August 2020 per the notice)","defendants":["Churchill Downs Incorporated","Big Fish Games, Inc.","Aristocrat Technologies, Inc.","Aristocrat Leisure Limited"],"class_counsel":["Edelson PC","Tousley Brain Stephens PLLC"],"defense_counsel":["Susman Godfrey L.L.P."],"judge":"Marsha J. Pechman (dismissal 2015); Robert S. Lasnik (final approval 2021)"},"claims":["RCW 4.24.070 Recovery of Money Lost at Gambling Act","RCW 19.86 Washington Consumer Protection Act","unjust enrichment"],"status":"settled-final","status_date":"2021-02-11","money":{"fund":155000000,"currency":"USD","attorney_fees":38750000,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"Pro rata on lifetime chip spend with escalating marginal recovery tiers, scaled so the net fund (USD 155M minus USD 38,750,000 fees, USD 1,590,690 costs, administration and incentive awards) is exhausted; estimate = lifetime spend x tier rate x (net fund / sum of approved claims). Approved claims payable within 60 days of the Effective Date (Agreement s. 2.1(f)).","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"2021-01-04","exclusion_deadline":"2021-01-04","final_approval_hearing":"2021-02-11","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"https://dockets.justia.com/docket/washington/wawdce/2:2015cv00612/213368","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/03/28/16-35010.pdf","https://truthinadvertising.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Kater-and-Thimmegowda-v-Churchill-Downs-and-Big-Fish-Games-order-granting-final-approval-of-class-action-settlement.pdf","https://truthinadvertising.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Kater-v-Churchill-Downs-complaint.pdf"],"regulator":"","press":["https://news.bloomberglaw.com/class-action/churchill-downs-others-settle-gaming-app-suit-for-155-million","https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/closed-settlements/big-fish-casino-jackpot-magic-slots-epic-diamond-slots-class-action-settlement/"]},"summary":"Cheryl Kater lost over USD 1,000 in Big Fish Casino chips and sued on 17 April 2015 under Washington's Recovery of Money Lost at Gambling Act. Judge Pechman dismissed the case on 19 November 2015; the Ninth Circuit reversed on 28 March 2018 (886 F.3d 784). After remand, Churchill Downs (USD 124 million) and Aristocrat (USD 31 million) funded a USD 155 million common fund covering this case and Thimmegowda v. Big Fish Games, administered by Angeion Group; agreement signed 22-24 July 2020, preliminary approval 31 August 2020, final approval 11 February 2021 (Dkt. 289, Judge Lasnik) with USD 38,750,000 in fees and USD 1,590,690 in costs, twelve exclusions or opt-outs and one objection that was resolved. The first social casino settlement in the United States.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-US-0002","GL-US-0003","GL-US-0020"],"sources":[{"claim":"filed 17 April 2015, W.D. Wash. No. 15-cv-612; dismissed 19 Nov 2015 (2015 WL 9839755)","url":"https://www.classaction.org/media/ferrando-et-al-v-zynga-inc-motion-for-settlement-approval.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"class definition, claim and exclusion deadline 4 Jan 2021, hearing 11 Feb 2021, notice address 1650 Arch Street Suite 2210 Philadelphia","url":"https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/closed-settlements/big-fish-casino-jackpot-magic-slots-epic-diamond-slots-class-action-settlement/","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"final approval Dkt. 289 granting USD 155 million settlement","url":"https://www.classaction.org/media/ferrando-et-al-v-zynga-inc-motion-for-settlement-approval.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"complaint filed 17 April 2015, Case 2:15-cv-00612-MJP Dkt. 2","url":"https://truthinadvertising.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Kater-v-Churchill-Downs-complaint.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"final approval order Dkt. 289 of 11 Feb 2021 (both case numbers), class definition, 2 opt-outs and 10 exclusions, 1 resolved objection, fees USD 38,750,000, costs USD 1,590,690","url":"https://truthinadvertising.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Kater-and-Thimmegowda-v-Churchill-Downs-and-Big-Fish-Games-order-granting-final-approval-of-class-action-settlement.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"secondary"},{"claim":"settlement agreement (SEC exhibit): USD 155,000,000 fund, Angeion Group as administrator, class definition, fee petition capped at 30%, payment within 14 days of final approval, signed 22-24 July 2020","url":"https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/20212/000002021221000019/exhibitkkaterlitigationset.htm","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"Churchill Downs 8-K exhibit of 24 May 2020: CDI pays USD 124 million, Aristocrat USD 31 million, contingent on court approval","url":"https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/20212/000002021220000060/ex991pressrelease05-24.htm","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"open":["actual per-claimant payouts (only Top Class Actions' reported range)","payment date and distribution totals (Top Class Actions: payments scheduled on or before 11 July 2021; reader-reported payouts USD 7.50 to USD 100,000 and up to USD 57,000; not administrator or docket figures)","preliminary approval order date (31 Aug 2020) taken from the settlement notice as reproduced by Top Class Actions; Justia Dkt. 275 not readable in session","settlement website BigFishGamesSettlement.com offline"],"status_read_from_records":true,"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/social-casino/kater-v-churchill-downs/"},{"id":"GL-US-0850","slug":"park-v-commissioner-nonresident-gambler-per-session","title":"Park v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue","short_name":"Park: per-session gambling income for non-resident aliens","aliases":["park v commissioner 722 f3d 384","nonresident alien gambling winnings per session","kavanaugh slot machine tax opinion"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"US","state":"DC","court":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (from the Tax Court)","level":"appeal"},"docket":"12-1058 (consolidated with 12-1059)","filed":"2011","category":"tax","case_type":"individual","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Sang J. Park and Won Kyung O (South Korean visitors)","defendants":["Commissioner of Internal Revenue"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"Kavanaugh (author), Tatel, Sentelle"},"claims":["Whether s. 871 taxes a non-resident alien's slot winnings bet by bet or per gambling session"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2013-07-09","money":{"fund":"","currency":"USD","attorney_fees":"","payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-caDC-12-01058/pdf/USCOURTS-caDC-12-01058-0.pdf"],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"Kavanaugh, J. (722 F.3d 384) reversed the Tax Court (136 T.C. 569): non-resident aliens may measure slot gains and losses per session, as US citizens do, rather than paying 30 percent withholding on every winning pull. The IRS later adopted the session approach in regulations and proposed safe harbours.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":[],"sources":[{"retrieved":"2026-11-14","claim":"caption, dockets, argued 11 April 2013, decided 9 July 2013, author, holding","url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-caDC-12-01058/pdf/USCOURTS-caDC-12-01058-0.pdf"},{"claim":"No. 12-1058 consolidated with 12-1059, argued 11 Apr 2013, decided 9 Jul 2013","url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-caDC-12-01058/pdf/USCOURTS-caDC-12-01058-0.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"open":[],"status_read_from_records":true,"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/tax/park-v-commissioner-nonresident-gambler-per-session/"},{"id":"GL-US-0849","slug":"mayo-v-commissioner-professional-gambler-business-expenses","title":"Mayo v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue","short_name":"Mayo: professional gamblers may deduct business expenses beyond winnings","aliases":["mayo v commissioner 136 tc 81","professional gambler business expenses tax court","section 165(d) wagering losses mayo"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"US","state":"","court":"U.S. Tax Court","level":"first-instance"},"docket":"Tax Court No. 15527-03 (136 T.C. 81)","filed":"2003","category":"tax","case_type":"individual","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Ronald and Leslie Mayo (professional horse-race bettor)","defendants":["Commissioner of Internal Revenue"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"Gale (court-reviewed opinion); Halpern concurring"},"claims":["Whether s. 165(d) (losses only to the extent of gains) also caps a professional gambler's ordinary business expenses under s. 162"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2011-01-25","money":{"fund":"","currency":"USD","attorney_fees":"","payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mayo-v-commr-tax-2011"],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"The Mayos reported $131,760 wagered, $120,463 won and $10,968 of other expenses. The Tax Court held that wagering losses stay capped at wagering gains even for professionals, but that non-wagering business expenses (handicapping data, travel, subscriptions) are deductible under s. 162 without the s. 165(d) cap, overruling Offutt; the IRS acquiesced (AOD 2011-06). Congress reversed this part for 2018-2025 in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, and the 2025 reconciliation act (OBBBA) limits deductible losses to 90 percent of losses from 2026. No lawsuit against the 90 percent cap was found as of this record.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":[],"sources":[{"retrieved":"2026-11-14","claim":"holding, figures, citation 136 T.C. 81","url":"https://www.journalofaccountancy.com/issues/2011/may/wageringlosses.html"},{"retrieved":"2026-11-14","claim":"opinion text","url":"https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mayo-v-commr-tax-2011"},{"claim":"Ronald Andrew Mayo and Leslie Archer Mayo v. Commissioner, Docket No. 15527-03, 136 T.C. 81, decided 25 Jan 2011, Gale J. (court-reviewed), Halpern J. concurring; tax year 2001; wagers 131,760, winnings 120,463, business expenses 10,968 allowed","url":"https://static.case.law/tc/136/cases/0081-01.json","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"docket number 15527-03 (petition filed 2003); tax year 2001","url":"https://static.case.law/tc/136/cases/0081-01.json","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"judge","url":"https://static.case.law/tc/136/cases/0081-01.json","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"open":[],"status_read_from_records":true,"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/tax/mayo-v-commissioner-professional-gambler-business-expenses/"},{"id":"GL-US-0897","slug":"greater-new-orleans-broadcasting-v-united-states-casino-advertising","title":"Greater New Orleans Broadcasting Association, Inc. v. United States","short_name":"Casino advertising First Amendment ruling","aliases":["greater new orleans broadcasting v united states","casino advertising ban unconstitutional 1999","18 usc 1304 casino ads"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"US","state":"LA","court":"U.S. Supreme Court (from the Fifth Circuit)","level":"supreme"},"docket":"98-387","filed":"1994","category":"advertising-marketing","case_type":"constitutional","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Greater New Orleans Broadcasting Association and Louisiana broadcasters","defendants":["United States","Federal Communications Commission"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"Stevens, J. (Rehnquist, C.J., concurring; Thomas, J., concurring in the judgment)"},"claims":["First Amendment (Central Hudson) challenge to 18 U.S.C. s. 1304 and FCC rules barring broadcast advertising of private casino gambling"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"1999-06-14","money":{"fund":"","currency":"USD","attorney_fees":"","payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-387.ZS.html"],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"Stevens, J. (527 U.S. 173) held that s. 1304 cannot constitutionally be applied to truthful broadcast ads for lawful casino gambling in a state where it is legal, given the statute's exemptions for tribal and state-run gambling. It opened the airwaves to casino and, after 2018, sportsbook advertising and is the constitutional backdrop to today's advertising suits and state marketing rules.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":[],"sources":[{"retrieved":"2026-11-14","claim":"docket 98-387, decided 14 June 1999, author, holding","url":"https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-387.ZS.html"},{"claim":"No. 98-387, argued 27 Apr 1999, decided 14 June 1999, Fifth Circuit reversed","url":"https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-387.ZS.html","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"open":[],"status_read_from_records":true,"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/advertising-marketing/greater-new-orleans-broadcasting-v-united-states-casino-advertising/"},{"id":"GL-US-0848","slug":"zarin-v-commissioner-gambling-debt-discharge","title":"Zarin v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue","short_name":"Zarin: no income from a settled casino debt","aliases":["zarin v commissioner","gambling debt cancellation of debt income case","resorts international zarin casino credit"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"US","state":"","court":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (from the Tax Court)","level":"appeal"},"docket":"3d Cir. No. 90-1240","filed":"1987","category":"tax","case_type":"individual","parties":{"plaintiffs":"David Zarin (compulsive craps player at Resorts International, Atlantic City)","defendants":["Commissioner of Internal Revenue"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"Cowen (author), Weis; Stapleton dissenting"},"claims":["Whether settling a $3,435,000 casino credit debt for $500,000 produced $2.9 million of discharge-of-indebtedness income"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"1990-10-10","money":{"fund":"","currency":"USD","attorney_fees":"","payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://case.law/f2d/916/110/"],"regulator":"","press":["https://quimbee.com/cases/zarin-v-commissioner-92-t-c-1084-1989"]},"summary":"Resorts extended credit to Zarin after New Jersey regulators had ordered it to stop; he lost millions, the casino sued for $3.4 million and settled for $500,000. The Tax Court (92 T.C. 1084, 1989) found $2.9 million of income. The Third Circuit reversed (916 F.2d 110): the chips were not property and the debt was unenforceable under state law and disputed, so settling it for less created no income. Still the leading case on the tax treatment of forgiven gambling markers.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":[],"sources":[{"retrieved":"2026-11-14","claim":"Third Circuit opinion text, 916 F.2d 110","url":"https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F2/916/916.F2d.110.html"},{"retrieved":"2026-11-14","claim":"Tax Court facts: $3,435,000 debt settled for $500,000, deficiency","url":"https://quimbee.com/cases/zarin-v-commissioner-92-t-c-1084-1989"},{"claim":"Zarin v. Commissioner, 916 F.2d 110, No. 90-1240, decided 10 Oct 1990, Cowen J. (Weis joining), Stapleton J. dissenting; reversing the Tax Court (92 T.C. 1084); USD 2,935,000 asserted discharge income","url":"https://static.case.law/f2d/916/cases/0110-01.json","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"decision date 10 Oct 1990","url":"https://static.case.law/f2d/916/cases/0110-01.json","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"panel","url":"https://static.case.law/f2d/916/cases/0110-01.json","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"law.resource.org URL returns 404; Caselaw Access Project copy of 916 F.2d 110","url":"https://case.law/f2d/916/110/","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"open":[],"status_read_from_records":true,"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/tax/zarin-v-commissioner-gambling-debt-discharge/"},{"id":"GL-US-1500","slug":"california-v-cabazon-band-of-mission-indians","title":"California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 480 U.S. 202 (1987)","short_name":"Cabazon (tribal gaming precedent, 1987)","aliases":["california v cabazon","cabazon band of mission indians 1987","cabazon decision indian gaming","480 u.s. 202","public law 280 bingo reservation case"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"US","state":"CA","court":"U.S. Supreme Court (from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit)","level":"supreme"},"docket":"85-1708","filed":"","category":"regulator-court","case_type":"regulator-v-operator","parties":{"plaintiffs":"State of California and County of Riverside (seeking to enforce the state bingo statute and a county card-room ordinance on the reservations)","defendants":["Cabazon Band of Mission Indians","Morongo Band of Mission Indians"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"Justice White (majority); Justice Stevens (dissent, joined by O'Connor and Scalia)"},"claims":["Public Law 280 (18 U.S.C. § 1162, 28 U.S.C. § 1360): criminal/prohibitory versus civil/regulatory state laws","federal preemption of state regulation of gambling on Indian lands; tribal self-government"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"1987-02-25","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"USD","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/480/202"],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"Argued 9 December 1986 and decided 25 February 1987 by 6-3, Cabazon is the judgment that made tribal gaming a national industry and prompted Congress to pass the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act in 1988. The Cabazon and Morongo Bands ran high-stakes bingo and card games on their reservations; California and Riverside County sought to apply state bingo limits and a county ordinance. The Court held that Public Law 280 lets states apply only criminal/prohibitory laws on reservations, that California's bingo law, which permits bingo for charity, is civil/regulatory, and that federal and tribal interests in self-sufficiency outweigh the state's interest in preventing organised crime, so the state and county laws were preempted. Its prohibitory/regulatory test is cited in the 2025-2026 tribal suits against Kalshi (GL-US-0683) and in every compact dispute.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-US-0826","GL-US-0820","GL-US-0816","GL-US-0817","GL-US-1504","GL-US-1511","GL-US-0824"],"sources":[{"claim":"No. 85-1708; argued Dec. 9, 1986; decided Feb. 25, 1987; 6-3; White for the Court; Stevens dissenting with O'Connor and Scalia; Ninth Circuit affirmed; Public Law 280 civil/regulatory holding; preemption of state and county gambling laws","url":"https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/480/202","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/regulator-court/california-v-cabazon-band-of-mission-indians/"},{"id":"GL-US-1501","slug":"posadas-de-puerto-rico-v-tourism-company","title":"Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates v. Tourism Company of Puerto Rico, 478 U.S. 328 (1986)","short_name":"Posadas (casino advertising, 1986)","aliases":["posadas de puerto rico v tourism company","posadas casino advertising first amendment","478 u.s. 328","casino advertising ban puerto rico supreme court"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"US","state":"PR","court":"U.S. Supreme Court (appeal from the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, which had dismissed the appeal from the Superior Court, San Juan Section)","level":"supreme"},"docket":"84-1903","filed":"","category":"advertising-marketing","case_type":"constitutional","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates (casino operator challenging the advertising restrictions)","defendants":["Tourism Company of Puerto Rico (government corporation administering the Games of Chance Act of 1948 and its advertising regulations)"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"Justice Rehnquist (majority); Justices Brennan and Stevens (dissents)"},"claims":["First Amendment (commercial speech, Central Hudson test)","Puerto Rico Games of Chance Act of 1948 and Tourism Company regulations restricting casino advertising aimed at residents"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"1986-07-01","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"USD","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/478/328"],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"Argued 28 April 1986 and decided 1 July 1986 by 5-4, Posadas upheld Puerto Rico's ban on casino advertising directed at its own residents (while permitting advertising aimed at tourists), as narrowed by the Superior Court. Applying Central Hudson, Justice Rehnquist found the government's interest in residents' health, safety and welfare substantial, the ban a direct way of reducing demand for casino gambling, and the narrowed rule no more extensive than necessary; the Court added that a legislature able to ban an activity may ban its advertising. Brennan and Stevens dissented. The 'greater includes the lesser' reasoning was repudiated in 44 Liquormart (1996) and the Court struck down the federal broadcast ban on casino advertising in Greater New Orleans Broadcasting (1999, GL-US-0897), but Posadas remains the starting point for every US gambling-advertising case and for the current state restrictions on sportsbook promotions.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-US-0897","GL-US-0400","GL-US-0407","GL-US-0423"],"sources":[{"claim":"No. 84-1903; argued April 28, 1986; decided July 1, 1986; 5-4; Rehnquist for the Court with Burger, White, Powell, O'Connor; dissents by Brennan (with Marshall, Blackmun) and Stevens (with Marshall, Blackmun); Superior Court of Puerto Rico narrowing construction; Central Hudson holding","url":"https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/478/328","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/advertising-marketing/posadas-de-puerto-rico-v-tourism-company/"},{"id":"GL-US-1508","slug":"gold-coast-hotel-and-casino-v-united-states","title":"Gold Coast Hotel & Casino v. United States, 158 F.3d 484 (9th Cir. 16 October 1998): slot club point liabilities are deductible when the member reaches the redemption threshold","short_name":"Gold Coast Hotel & Casino v. United States (slot club tax, 1998)","aliases":["gold coast hotel v united states","158 f.3d 484","slot club points deduction casino tax","casino loyalty points all events test"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"US","state":"NV","court":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (from the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada)","level":"appeal"},"docket":"96-17236","filed":"","category":"tax","case_type":"operator-v-regulator","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Gold Coast Hotel & Casino (Las Vegas; accrual-method taxpayer; refund suit for 1989 and 1990)","defendants":["United States"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"District Judge Whaley, sitting by designation (opinion), with Circuit Judges Fletcher and T.G. Nelson"},"claims":["Internal Revenue Code § 461 and the all-events test: deductibility of accrued slot club point liabilities"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"1998-10-16","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"USD","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://static.case.law/f3d/158/cases/0484-01.json"],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"The Gold Coast's slot club let members redeem points for prizes once they held 1,200 points. The district court (order of 26 September 1996, final judgment 20 April 1998) allowed the casino to deduct the value of points held by members above 1,200 and disallowed the rest. Submitted on 12 December 1997 and decided 16 October 1998, the Ninth Circuit affirmed: the 1,200th point fixes the casino's liability, the stipulated value of a point makes the amount determinable with reasonable certainty, and the chance that some points are never redeemed does not make the liability contingent. The decision governs how casino loyalty programmes are expensed and is cited in the accounting of today's sportsbook and online-casino reward schemes.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-US-1507"],"sources":[{"claim":"No. 96-17236; submitted December 12, 1997; decided October 16, 1998; Fletcher, T.G. Nelson, Whaley (D.J.); Whaley for the court; D. Nev. order September 26, 1996, final judgment April 20, 1998; tax years 1989 and 1990; 1,200-point threshold; all-events test; affirmed","url":"https://static.case.law/f3d/158/cases/0484-01.json","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary","note":"Caselaw Access Project scan of the official reporter"}],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/tax/gold-coast-hotel-and-casino-v-united-states/"},{"id":"GL-US-1509","slug":"brown-v-hotel-and-restaurant-employees-local-54","title":"Brown v. Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union Local 54, 468 U.S. 491 (1984): New Jersey's casino-union officer disqualification rules are not preempted by the NLRA","short_name":"Brown v. Local 54 (casino union regulation, 1984)","aliases":["brown v hotel and restaurant employees local 54","468 u.s. 491","casino control act union officials disqualification supreme court","atlantic city casino union nlra preemption"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"US","state":"NJ","court":"U.S. Supreme Court (from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 709 F.2d 815 (1983))","level":"supreme"},"docket":"83-498; 83-573 (Danziger v. Hotel and Restaurant Employees, consolidated)","filed":"","category":"licensing-administrative","case_type":"constitutional","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union Local 54 (Atlantic City casino workers' union) challenging the Casino Control Commission's disqualification of its officers","defendants":["Brown (Chairman, New Jersey Casino Control Commission) and others","Danziger and others (New Jersey officials, companion petition)"],"class_counsel":[],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"Justice O'Connor (majority); Justice White (dissent, joined by Powell and Stevens); Brennan and Marshall took no part"},"claims":["New Jersey Casino Control Act §§ 86 and 93 (disqualification of casino-union officials associated with organised crime; dues-collection sanction)","National Labor Relations Act § 7 (preemption)","Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"1984-07-02","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"USD","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/468/491"],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"New Jersey's Casino Control Act barred unions representing casino employees from being led by officers with organised-crime associations and let the Commission stop a union from collecting dues if it did not remove them. The Third Circuit held the scheme preempted by the NLRA. Argued 26 March 1984 and decided 2 July 1984, the Supreme Court (O'Connor, J.) vacated and remanded: the qualification standards of § 86, applied through § 93, do not actually conflict with employees' § 7 right to choose their representatives, in light of the LMRDA and Congress's approval of similar standards in the New York Waterfront Commission compact (De Veau); whether the dues-collection sanction would prevent the union from functioning was left for remand. White, Powell and Stevens dissented. The case is the constitutional basis for the probity controls that casino regulators impose on unions, vendors and executives.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-US-0843","GL-US-0858"],"sources":[{"claim":"Nos. 83-498 and 83-573; argued March 26, 1984; decided July 2, 1984; O'Connor for the Court; White dissenting with Powell and Stevens; Brennan and Marshall took no part; Third Circuit 709 F.2d 815 vacated and remanded; §§ 86 and 93 Casino Control Act not preempted by NLRA § 7; dues-collection sanction remanded","url":"https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/468/491","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"status_read_from_records":true,"open":[],"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/licensing-administrative/brown-v-hotel-and-restaurant-employees-local-54/"},{"id":"GL-US-0005","slug":"benson-v-double-down-ninth-circuit-arbitration","title":"Benson v. Double Down Interactive, LLC (9th Cir. No. 18-36015)","short_name":"DoubleDown arbitration appeal","aliases":["benson v double down 9th circuit","doubledown arbitration clause ruling"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"US","state":"WA","court":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit","level":"appeal"},"docket":"18-36015","filed":"","category":"social-casino","case_type":"appeal","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Adrienne Benson and Mary Simonson, plaintiffs-appellees","defendants":["Double Down Interactive, LLC","International Game Technology"],"class_counsel":["Edelson PC"],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"Gould, Nguyen, R. Collins (by designation)"},"claims":["Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. 16(a)(1)(B)","Washington contract formation (browsewrap notice)"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2020-01-29","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"USD","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2020/01/29/18-36015.pdf"],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"Appeal from D.C. No. 2:18-cv-00525-RBL (Judge Leighton). Unpublished memorandum of 29 January 2020 (submitted 28 January 2020) affirming Judge Leighton's denial of Double Down's motion to compel arbitration. Applying Wilson v. Huuuge, the panel held Double Down did not prove assent to its browsewrap Terms of Use: the terms were buried at the bottom of the App Store page and hidden behind a small settings menu in the game, a 'hide-the-ball exercise'.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-US-0004","GL-US-0008"],"sources":[{"claim":"caption, panel, date, holding","url":"https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2020/01/29/18-36015.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"open":[],"status_read_from_records":true,"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/social-casino/benson-v-double-down-ninth-circuit-arbitration/"},{"id":"GL-US-0008","slug":"wilson-v-huuuge-ninth-circuit","title":"Wilson v. Huuuge, Inc., 944 F.3d 1212 (9th Cir. 2019)","short_name":"Huuuge arbitration ruling","aliases":["wilson v huuuge 944 f3d 1212","browsewrap arbitration social casino"],"jurisdiction":{"country":"US","state":"WA","court":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit","level":"appeal"},"docket":"18-36017","filed":"","category":"social-casino","case_type":"appeal","parties":{"plaintiffs":"Sean Wilson, plaintiff-appellee","defendants":["Huuuge, Inc."],"class_counsel":["Edelson PC"],"defense_counsel":[],"judge":"M. Margaret McKeown (author), Jay S. Bybee, Fernando J. Gaitan Jr. (by designation)"},"claims":["Federal Arbitration Act","Washington contract formation (reasonable notice of terms)"],"status":"judgment","status_date":"2019-12-20","money":{"fund":0,"currency":"USD","attorney_fees":0,"payout_estimate":"","payout_formula":"","payout_actual":"","fine_or_damages":""},"dates":{"claim_deadline":"","exclusion_deadline":"","final_approval_hearing":"","payment_date":"","next_hearing":""},"links":{"docket":"","administrator":"","claim_form":"","orders":["https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2019/12/20/18-36017.pdf"],"regulator":"","press":[]},"summary":"Appeal from D.C. No. 3:18-cv-05276-RBL (Judge Leighton). Argued 29 August 2019, filed 20 December 2019. The panel affirmed the denial of Huuuge's motion to compel arbitration: under Washington law a browsewrap agreement binds only a user with reasonable notice, and Huuuge's terms were reachable only by scrolling past multiple screens in the app store or through an obscure settings menu. The decision is the standard citation on app-store browsewrap terms and controlled Benson v. Double Down.","significance":"precedent","related_cases":["GL-US-0007","GL-US-0005"],"sources":[{"claim":"caption, panel, argued and filed dates, holding","url":"https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2019/12/20/18-36017.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"},{"claim":"citation 944 F.3d 1212","url":"https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2020/01/29/18-36015.pdf","retrieved":"2026-11-14","source_type":"primary"}],"open":[],"status_read_from_records":true,"last_checked":"2026-11-14","page_url":"https://gamblinglawsuits.org/cases/social-casino/wilson-v-huuuge-ninth-circuit/"}]}