Process - BGH examines player claims for unauthorized sports betting
A person who lost money on unlawful sports bets with Tipico several years ago may be able to claim a refund of their bet stakes. At the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) in Karlsruhe, the question was discussed on a Thursday as to whether an provider, who had organized online sports bets without the necessary license in Germany, is required to refund the lost bets of a player. The Senate, according to a preliminary assessment by the presiding judge Thomas Koch at the beginning of the hearing in Karlsruhe, is inclined to consider such contracts without a so-called license as invalid, even if the license had already been applied for. Players could then have a claim for a refund.
In this specific case, a man had participated in sports bets offered by Tipico from 2013 to 2018 and lost more than 3700 Euro, which he demanded back. In his opinion, the sports bets were unlawful and the betting contracts were ineffective because the provider did not have the required permission from the competent German authority. Tipico had applied for a license, but only received it in 2020.
So far, the player's lawsuit had not been successful. The Landgericht Ulm argued that Tipico had violated provisions of the then valid German Gambling State Treaty from 2012, but the betting contracts were effective. The BGH saw things differently, as evidenced by a hint given in a decision published at the beginning of April in a similar case, which strengthened the position of the players.
European law issues?
At the center of the hearing on Thursday was, among other things, the question of how the case should be assessed in European law. The attorneys representing Tipico appealed to the Senate to present the controversial issue to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. The BGH had not considered an ECJ reference necessary so far. The relevant questions had been answered, it was stated in the hint decision from April.
However, there was also a possibility of an ECJ reference in the current case, explained Judge Koch at the end of the hearing. There were questions that had not been raised in the other case. Tipico attorney Ronald Reichert expressed satisfaction after the hearing. "I have the impression that the Senate is seriously considering presenting the matter to the European Court of Justice, and that was what we had demanded unconditionally."
BGH attorney Christian Rohnke emphasized in the courtroom that Tipico had only lacked the permission to conduct sports bets because it had been unlawfully withheld from the company. One should ask whether one could punish the provider for the fact that the license was not granted to him in violation of Union law, and yet he conducted sports bets.
Judgment could trigger a wave of lawsuits
If the BGH were to issue a player-friendly judgment, experts believe that a larger wave of lawsuits could result, as thousands of similar cases are already pending in German courts. This is also due to the fact that law firms and some companies have specialized in such lawsuits. The companies act as intermediaries and provide lawyers for the players while taking on the costs of legal proceedings in return for a provision in the event of success. The company Gamesright, which in this case bought the player's claims and now represents him as a plaintiff against Tipico, is an example of this.
"For us, today was a complete success," said Gamesright Co-Founder Hannes Beuck after the hearing. "The Senate expressed itself extensively and provisionally granted us rights in almost all points." We hope for a quick judgment and a leading case decision, which will make it easier for other courts to decide in line with the Federal Court of Justice (BGH). When the BGH will announce a decision remained open initially.
BGH hearing announcement
The player's claim for refund stems from unlawful sports bets placed with Tipico between 2013 and 2018, despite the provider not having the necessary license at the time. Tipico had applied for a license but only received it in 2020. The Landgericht Ulm initially ruled against the player, but the BGH has since indicated a more favorable stance towards players in a related case.
In the recent hearing at the BGH in Karlsruhe, the issue of European law was discussed. Tipico's attorneys argued for an ECJ reference, while the BGH had not found such a reference necessary in the past. Judge Koch suggested that there might be questions in the current case that warrant an ECJ reference.
If the BGH were to rule in favor of the player, it could lead to a wave of similar lawsuits due to the large number of pending cases and the involvement of companies like Gamesright, which buy players' claims and handle legal proceedings in return for a provision. Gamesright's Co-Founder Hannes Beuck expressed optimism after the hearing.
The question of whether the provider should be penalized for conducting unlawful sports bets due to a delayed license, in violation of Union law, was also raised in the hearing. The BGH attorney emphasized the unlawful withholding of the license as the reason for Tipico's situation.
The outcome of this landmark case could provide clear guidelines for courts handling similar cases in the future. The BGH has not yet announced a decision. In Karlsruhe, the Federal Court of Justice continues to explore the complex interplay of sports betting, legal licenses, and consumer protection rights.
