Can You Get Gambling Losses Back? What Courts Have Ordered, Country by Country

Usually no: in most countries a bet voluntarily placed is money gone, and no court has ordered a licensed operator to refund a player simply because the player lost or could not stop. Where, then, has a court ordered the money back?

In a short list of country-specific routes, and "back" means something different in each: restitution of the stakes where a contract is void or a game illegal, damages where a court finds a duty was breached.

The short answer

The exceptions are court-made and depend on where you played: German and Austrian courts order refunds because contracts with unlicensed online casinos are void, Washington and Kentucky let players recover losses on games the state treats as illegal, and Sweden's Supreme Court made one operator repay EUR 527,395 under a good-faith rule.

The German and Austrian line is tracked under online casino refund litigation in Germany and Austria, where each decision has its own page.

Nowhere has a player recovered losses in court on the ground of addiction alone in the United States, the United Kingdom or Australia, as of 14 November 2026. The procedure behind each route is explained in the guides to how gambling lawsuits and settlements work.

Status is the latest appellate or supreme-court decision; the German answer is pending before the Bundesgerichtshof until 28 January 2027; checked 14 November 2026.

What the courts have actually decided

The decisions below carry the answer, and the table gives each one's court, docket and date. It lists decisions and settlements, not pending complaints.

Leading decisions on recovering gambling losses, by country, as of 14 November 2026

United States: illegal-game statutes, three settlements with cash, and the walls

US law has no general refund right, but several states keep a loss-recovery statute from the Statute of Anne tradition, and two of them have produced every settlement that paid players: Washington (RCW 4.24.070) and Kentucky (KRS 372).

The statutes are compared state by state in the tracker of gambling loss recovery statutes by US state.

The Ninth Circuit held on 28 March 2018 (Kater v. Churchill Downs, 886 F.3d 784, No. 16-35010) that virtual chips are a thing of value, and the case ended in a USD 155 million gross fund with final approval on 11 February 2021.

In Larsen v. PTT (W.D. Wash. 3:18-cv-05275) a jury verdict of 7 February 2025 led to a judgment of USD 24,928,712.17 on 11 June 2025, and claims run to 4 January 2027 (claims-open as of 14 August 2026).

Armstead v. VGW Malta (Henderson County, Kentucky, 2022-CI-00553) settled for USD 11,750,000 and closed to claims on 6 March 2023.

Two claims are open now with money for players. The Pulsz six-state settlement is set to pay claimants if the court grants final approval, and its cash election is an estimated 23 percent of net spend before pro rata deductions, with claims to 30 November 2026.

New York's attorney general separately lets eligible VGW players redeem Sweeps Coins until 31 August 2027 (AOD 26-052), an administrative settlement, not a court case.

Two walls stand in the way. A plaintiff who never played has no standing: the Sixth Circuit held so in Burt v.

Playtika on 16 March 2025, and a federal judge in the Western District of Kentucky dismissed five Kentucky loss-recovery suits on 26 March 2026. California bars the claim on public policy (Zhen v. DraftKings, N.D. Cal. 3:25-cv-04618-CRB, 29 July 2026).

Addiction suits against sportsbooks were dismissed (Antar, Third Circuit, 28 April 2025; De Leon, S.D.N.Y., 11 December 2025; Macek, E.D. Pa., 23 March 2026, on appeal) or settled on confidential terms (Fischer, 8 July 2025; D'Alessandro, 10 July 2025).

No MDL or certified class exists. A complaint states one side's allegations, and only the court's orders decide anything; the category is covered under gambling addiction lawsuits against operators.

Germany: void contracts, the OLG line and the BGH verdict of 28 January 2027

German courts order unlicensed online casinos to repay net losses because the contracts are void under § 134 BGB, and the Bundesgerichtshof will give the binding answer in its lead case I ZR 216/25 on 28 January 2027, after the Court of Justice held on 16 April 2026 (C-440/23) that EU law does not stand in the way.

The Bundesgerichtshof stayed the case on 17 February 2026, designated it a lead case on 19 May 2026 and heard it on 17 September 2026, as the page on the BGH lead case on online casino refunds (I ZR 216/25) records.

Appellate courts had already ordered repayment: OLG Köln (19 U 51/22, 31 October 2022, EUR 58,517.70), OLG Nürnberg (14 U 352/23, 3 November 2023, EUR 91,667.76 of net losses) and OLG Stuttgart (5 U 113/25, 29 September 2025).

Sports betting runs on a separate track: the BGH hint order I ZR 88/23 of 22 March 2024 said the betting contracts were void before the Revision was withdrawn, and the Tipico referral C-530/24 awaits a judgment after the Advocate General's opinion of 19 March 2026.

The limits matter as much. For play from abroad, OLG München (17 U 2661/24 e, 24 February 2025, now before the BGH as I ZR 78/25 with the same verdict date) reversed a refund, and on 12 June 2026 it dismissed a claim of EUR 168,650.23 (36 U 1331/25 e).

On limit breaches by licensed operators, one senate of that court found no claim (27 U 2436/25 e, 5 January 2026, EUR 15,214) and another granted EUR 5,498.21 (36 U 713/25 e, 19 June 2026); the two decisions conflict.

The bank route is closed: the Bundesgerichtshof signalled on 13 September 2022 (XI ZR 515/21) that a card payment the player authorized is not void, and the player withdrew the appeal. Why courts reach the refund at all is set out in why German courts order online casinos to refund losses.

On scale, Investigate Europe estimated in March 2025 about 50,000 pending German and Austrian claims, an estimate and not a court count. A law-firm tracker counted 38 published first-instance and appellate decisions by June 2022.

Litigation funders' success fees have been reported at 32 to 47 percent of the recovery, and law-firm success rates are law-firm figures. German-speaking readers will find the detail at Online Casino Geld zurück: was die Gerichte entschieden haben.

Austria: Supreme Court rulings for players in online casino cases, and against them in sports betting

Austria's Supreme Court has ruled for players in the online casino and poker refund cases it has decided since 20 May 2021 (3 Ob 72/21s, EUR 73,536) and against them in every online sports-betting case on record (1 Ob 176/22x, 27 January 2023; 8 Ob 112/23p, 13 December 2023; 9 Ob 76/25d, 23 October 2025).

Its leading casino ruling is the OGH 6 Ob 229/21a online poker ruling of 2 February 2022, which ordered restitution regardless of the player's knowledge.

On 11 December 2023 (7 Ob 155/23d) the court upheld a claim of EUR 615,996.18 except EUR 46,170.33 for play from abroad, and on 19 February 2025 (7 Ob 16/25s) it held that Malta's refusal to enforce is no reason to stop the case.

Two doors stayed shut. Gambling addiction alone is not legal incapacity (8 Ob 41/25z, 28 March 2025, EUR 86,245.33 dismissed; the court text has not been read here and the ruling is reported by the press), and the duty of care of land-based casinos under § 25 Abs. 3 GSpG (2 Ob 186/11h, 28 March 2012) does not extend online. The case law is also collected in OGH-Rechtsprechung zur Rückforderung von Online-Glücksspielverlusten.

Enforcing a judgment: Malta refuses, Curaçao recognizes

Winning is not being paid: Maltese courts have refused to enforce Austrian and German refund judgments under Article 56A of the Gaming Act since 2023, and the Court of Justice is due to rule on that provision in C-683/24 on 19 November 2026 (date per secondary reports).

The first refusal came in 2023 in the TSG garnishee case, and the Austrian Supreme Court called enforcement in Malta unreasonable on 3 April 2024 (3 Nc 10/24m).

A law-firm tracker (casinoklage.at, 10 September 2026) counts five Maltese decisions in 2026, all refusals or suspensions and no recognitions, which is a law-firm figure.

On 21 May 2026 the Court of Justice held in C-198/24 that Article 56A may be taken into account when judging the urgency of a European Account Preservation Order. The background is in Malta Bill 55 and the enforcement of Austrian and German judgments.

Curaçao has gone the other way. Its Joint Court recognized Austrian refund judgments in twelve judgments of 10 March 2026 (the Raging Rhino matters), following the Hoge Raad's Araxio ruling of 1 March 2024; the wider record is under gambling lawsuits in Curaçao.

United Kingdom, Australia and Canada: the duty-of-care route has failed

In England and Wales gambling contracts are enforceable (Gambling Act 2005 s.335) and no court has awarded a player his losses on a duty-of-care theory: Calvert v William Hill (Court of Appeal, 16 December 2008), Gibson v Betfair (Court of Appeal, 8 December 2025) and Ashton v Betfair (High Court, 13 November 2026) all failed.

Refunds there have come from Gambling Commission regulatory settlements, not judgments, and the route is explained in UK gambling compensation claims: what has succeeded in court.

Australia's High Court refused Kakavas's claim of about AUD 20.5 million on 5 June 2013, and earlier cases failed too (Reynolds, New South Wales Court of Appeal, 2001; Foroughi, Federal Court, 27 September 2007).

Three Federal Court suits against bookmakers (Gassner, filed 2023; Fineff, 2026; Eddine, 2026) are pending without a judgment, and the Sportsbet Fast Code class action has been in trial since 3 August 2026 with no judgment. See gambling class actions in Australia.

In Canada, certification was refused in Dennis (Ontario, Supreme Court of Canada leave denied 13 February 2014), the Supreme Court of Canada struck the Babstock claim on 24 July 2020 (2020 SCC 19), and Brochu (Quebec) settled in 2010 with therapy costs reimbursed on proof, the only Canadian addiction class action on record that paid anything.

The Canadian grounds are in can you sue a casino or lottery corporation in Canada.

Sweden, the Netherlands and the rest of Europe

Sweden is the one country whose Supreme Court has ordered an operator to repay a problem gambler's losses: HD T 607-24 of 1 July 2025 held Betsson's agreements invalid under 33 § avtalslagen and ordered EUR 527,395 repaid, because an operator whose systems collect behavioral data is deemed to know what the data shows.

The Svea hovrätt reportedly ordered about SEK 4.7 million repaid in February 2026, per press, with no case number found. More is under gambling lawsuits in Sweden.

The Netherlands closed the void-contract route on 3 July 2026, when the Hoge Raad held that pre-2021 contracts are neither void nor voidable.

Duty-of-care claims remain: Utrecht held Holland Casino liable on 17 August 2011 for readmitting a self-excluded player, a court in Oost-Brabant awarded EUR 5,000 on 18 January 2023, and the Consumentenbond sent a demand to six licensed operators on 21 November 2025. See gambling lawsuits in the Netherlands.

Elsewhere the picture is thin. Spain compensates harm, not stakes (Audiencia Provincial de Murcia, 4 November 2021, EUR 6,000, per secondary report).

France's Code civil art. 1965 bars actions on private gambling debts and does not protect players against licensed operators (Cour de cassation, 2 September 2026, n° 24-21.281). Curaçao's Court of First Instance awarded a problem gambler USD 143,958 on 25 May 2026.

Brazil's federal government sued 17 operators in late September 2026 asking for double refunds to diagnosed players, with no decision yet. New Zealand's three 2026 claims are at a preliminary stage, and the High Court in Auckland declined consolidation on 17 April 2026.

Differences by country

The grid gives the route, the leading case and the status for players in each country on record.

Route, leading case and status per country, as of 14 November 2026

The full country list, with every court and decision, is on the page for gambling lawsuits by country.

What this page does not cover

Recovering from gambling is not recovering money, and this page does not give treatment advice; the helplines for each country sit in the box below, and the list of gambling helplines by country is kept up to date.

Chargebacks and bank liability have their own owner page, can your bank refund gambling payments. The 90 percent rule in gambling is a 2026 US tax deduction cap, and the IRS is the place to read it.

Winnings an operator refuses to pay are a different claim, answered under can you sue a casino or sportsbook that refuses to pay.

Questions people ask

Can you sue a casino or sportsbook at all?

Yes, on five grounds, of which the illegal-game refund and the withheld-winnings claim are the two that have paid players. The grounds and their outcomes are on the owner page, can you sue a casino or sportsbook: grounds that have worked.

Can I get compensation for gambling in the UK?

Not through the courts so far: the three duty-of-care cases (Calvert 2008, Gibson 2025, Ashton 13 November 2026) all failed, and the refunds that exist came from Gambling Commission regulatory settlements and operator goodwill. See UK gambling compensation claims: what has succeeded in court.

Can my bank reverse gambling payments?

In Germany the Bundesgerichtshof closed that route on 13 September 2022 (XI ZR 515/21, a hint order, the appeal then withdrawn): a card payment the player authorized is not void, so the bank owes no refund. The rest is under can your bank refund gambling payments.

How much would a refund settlement pay per person?

Only a settled case has a figure, and it is an estimate until claims are counted: the net fund after fees, costs and awards, divided across valid claims. The one open US claim with a cash election is Pulsz, estimated at 23 percent of net spend before deductions, to 30 November 2026; the formula is on class action payout per person in gambling settlements.

How long does a refund case take and who pays the lawyer?

German and Austrian cases are individual suits, usually financed by a funder that takes 32 to 47 percent of the recovery, and the BGH wait alone runs to 28 January 2027. The funder terms are covered under litigation funders and online casino claims in Germany.

US class settlements pay months after final approval, and measured durations are on how long gambling lawsuits and settlements take. For a lawyer, use the bar referral service of your state, never a named firm.