The Austrian Supreme Court has come up with a surprise ruling that essentially allows an unnamed unlicensed gambling operator to seek and reclaim winnings paid out to an Austrian player in what must be one of the most peculiar such cases in Europe. There are a few caveats to observe, however, as reported by multiple industry sources.
Although similar cases have sprouted all over the place, with courts usually finding it appropriate for illegal operators to be on the hook and order them to repay winnings to players, the reverse has just happened in Austria.
Austrian courts side partially with unlicensed operator against player
The particular case covered by the Supreme Court concerns an unnamed operator that was based in Malta, offered gambling products to Austrian players, but did not have a license to do so.
A player who won €7,152.71 between May and July 2020 will now have to repay the operator, with the court acknowledging the operator’s complaint – that the market was illegal at the time when the player had gambled, and the winnings must be forfeited.
The player had deposited €22,000 and by July, they had amassed €29,100. Yet, the player will not be reimbursing the operator for the full €7,152.71 and will have to pay €626.60 to cover the operator’s legal fees instead.
The decision is surprising, not least because the operator in this case had acknowledged that it had operated without a license in the country, which makes it illegal.
This argument has held well in places such as the Netherlands, where before the new regulatory regime, unregulated operators were targeted with stiff penalties and the local regulator, the Kansspelautoriteit, has shown no relent in its pursuit of purported culprits.
But the Supreme Court has another goal in mind, as its decision seems to send a clear message to local players who may engage in offshore or unlicensed gambling, rather than sticking to the local monopoly.
Side with the player, and you invite the gambling addiction court to argue
In other words, the decision may serve as an example of what would happen to players personally if they were to engage in gambling that is not regulated by the country.
The court also explained that if players were the only ones asking back for their losses in the unregulated market, it would increase the risk of addiction as it would falsely instil the idea that gamblers can gamble without risk, and further argued that either of the two parties, that is to say, player or operator, can question the "contract," i.e. unregulated gambling, and seek their money back.
This is so because both parties had acted illegally, the court specified. The gambler has 14 days to comply with the order. Interestingly, in a previous case involving loot boxes, an Austrian court ordered Valve to repay €14,000 to a player who had spent the money on acquiring digital goods in Counter-Strike, a popular video game by the company.
Image credit: Unspalsh.com
