The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has ruled that EU law does not prevent Member States from prohibiting certain online gambling services, even when those services are legally authorised in another EU country. The judgment concerns European Lotto and Betting and Deutsche Lotto- und Sportwetten, and confirms that players may seek restitution for losses incurred under such prohibited services.
The case centred on two Malta-based operators licensed by the Malta Gaming Authority (MGA), which offered online virtual slot machines and betting on lottery outcomes to customers in Germany. Between June 2019 and July 2021, a German resident used these services and incurred losses, even though German law broadly prohibited such forms of online gambling.
In its ruling, the court held that “EU law does not preclude national legislation prohibiting the organisation of online casino games, slot machine games and certain forms of betting”. It added that such restrictions may be justified by the need to steer gambling into regulated channels and to combat parallel or illegal markets.
Consumers may reclaim losses from illegal play
A central issue in the case was whether players could recover money lost while participating in services that were unlawful in their home country. The CJEU concluded that EU law does not prevent such claims.
According to the judgment, “a consumer may bring a claim for restitution of lost stakes against operators established in another Member State where the games of chance at issue were prohibited in the consumer’s Member State of residence.” The court further stated that EU law does not preclude “a civil action for restitution of the stakes lost.”
The court noted that EU law does not prevent “the nullity of contracts concluded in breach of that prohibition,” leaving national courts to determine the legal consequences under domestic law.
This aspect of the decision could have wide implications, particularly in Germany, where players who gambled online before regulatory changes in mid-2021 may now seek compensation through domestic courts.
#ECJ: #EUlaw does not prevent Member States from banning certain online #gambling services authorised elsewhere or from attaching civil consequences to such bans 👉 https://t.co/A8niNi4spY
— EU Court of Justice (@EUCourtPress) April 16, 2026
Member States retain discretion on gambling laws
While online gambling services fall under the EU’s principle of freedom to provide services, the CJEU reaffirmed that this freedom is not absolute. The court said it can be restricted for “overriding reasons in the public interest,” such as consumer protection and the safeguarding of social order.
The judges emphasised that, in the absence of harmonised EU-wide gambling rules, Member States retain broad discretion. “Given the moral, cultural and social differences between Member States, the latter enjoy discretion in determining the level of protection sought,” the ruling stated.
The court also underlined the heightened risks associated with online gambling compared with physical venues. It highlighted factors such as “the permanence of access, the isolation and anonymity of the player, the absence of social control, the potentially unlimited frequency, and its attractiveness to young and vulnerable persons.”
These risks, the court found, justify stricter national controls, including outright bans on certain types of online gambling while permitting others under different regimes.
Germany’s legal changes do not alter past cases
Germany replaced its blanket prohibition on most online gambling with a regulated licensing system on 1 July 2021. However, the CJEU ruled that this policy shift does not affect the legality of earlier restrictions or claims arising from that period.
“The subsequent replacement of a general prohibition by a system of prior approval does not, in itself, affect the consistency or validity of the earlier regime,” the court stated.
The judgment also clarified that transitional arrangements or subsequent regulatory changes do not prevent courts from enforcing the legal consequences arising from the previous prohibition.
Implications for operators and EU gambling market
The ruling reinforces that holding a licence in one Member State does not guarantee access to all EU markets.
The court explicitly rejected the argument that a licence issued in another Member State automatically legitimises cross-border activity. It stated that “the fact that the operator is lawfully established and supervised in another Member State is not sufficient to demonstrate that such a prohibition is inconsistent or inappropriate.”
Be part of the action! Join the world’s biggest iGaming community with SiGMA’s Top 10 News countdown. Subscribe HERE for weekly updates, insider insights, and exclusive subscriber-only offers.
