European Court of Justice Case: "Refunds from Online Sports Betting" Reaches EU Courts

[Betting Forum]

The first case (Case No: I ZR 90/23), where a player is demanding a full refund of their losses from online sports betting, has now reached the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The reason is that the provider Tipico did not have a valid license for its services during the time the player placed bets. Initially, the German Federal Court (BGH) was set to decide in July, but now the BGH has sought guidance from the ECJ. Let’s explain what happens next for all those who wish to claim back their online sports betting losses.

Good News First:​

If the ECJ rules against Tipico, it will provide legal clarity and significantly boost the wave of lawsuits against illegal online sports betting operators. However, the bad news is that the ruling might take several months, benefiting Tipico as they gain valuable time in the meantime.

Our advice: Don’t wait to file a lawsuit! Losses can be reclaimed retroactively for up to ten years, and the clock starts ticking from the date the lawsuit is filed.

Online Sports Betting: BGH Favors Players​

The BGH’s submission to the ECJ, published at the end of July, gives players great hope. The Federal Court of Justice has expressed a player-friendly position across 32 pages, which likely dampens Tipico's spirits.

What Does This Mean for Players?​

For all players in Germany who lost money on online sports betting before October 2020, this means the following: If the European Court rules against Tipico, the situation in Germany will be clear. The German Federal Court is already siding with the players, and lower courts will likely follow suit, speeding up legal proceedings. The chances of reclaiming betting losses are quite good.

Tipico Operated Without a Valid License for Online Sports Betting in Germany​

Tipico, like many other online sports betting providers, did not have a valid license and failed to comply with many player protection regulations. These violations include:

A €1,000 limit: Players were supposed to bet no more than €1,000 per month.

Offering both sports betting and casino games simultaneously was prohibited.

Betting types that encouraged frequent repetition were meant to be excluded to prevent addiction.

The ECJ Must Now Clarify Whether European Service Freedom Trumps Player Protection​

The BGH has asked the ECJ two key questions regarding service freedom and player protection:

Question 1: Does the service freedom of a European gambling provider take precedence over German player protection laws, even if the provider had no valid license? Are contracts with Tipico valid despite the lack of a license?

Question 2: Can a player demand compensation if the provider had applied for a license but did not receive one due to an unlawful licensing process, even when online gambling was technically prohibited in their country?

What This Means for Players​

"As the director of Surebet247, I believe Nigeria has a lot to learn from the ongoing legal battles in Europe, especially when it comes to protecting our players and ensuring fair play in the betting industry. We need to adopt the best practices but also adapt them to fit our unique environment here in Nigeria.

Firstly, strict licensing regulations should be a non-negotiable. Every operator in our country must have a valid license to ensure that we’re only dealing with legal and responsible companies. This step alone would go a long way in safeguarding our players from bad actors in the industry. It’s important that Nigerian bettors know they are engaging with trusted operators, just like we do at Surebet247.

Secondly, player protection is at the heart of what we do. I believe we should take a serious look at setting monthly betting limits, like the €1,000 rule in Germany, to prevent gambling addiction. In Nigeria, a realistic limit should be set based on our local economy, but the principle remains the same – players should always bet within their means. We should also keep sports betting and casino games separate. At Surebet, we understand the importance of offering responsible gaming options, and this rule could further enhance that.

Moreover, one thing I’m passionate about is ensuring players have legal recourse when they are wronged. Nigerian authorities should allow players to seek refunds when betting operators violate the rules. We at Surebet247 take compliance seriously, and this would push all operators in Nigeria to do the same.

However, we must recognize that not all European regulations can work here in Nigeria. For example, the lengthy legal processes we see in Europe would likely overwhelm our courts. We need solutions that are quicker and more efficient. Players should be able to resolve disputes in a timely manner so that justice is served swiftly.

Additionally, while the European Union’s free market rules may complicate things over there, we in Nigeria cannot afford to rely on international operators without ensuring strict local oversight. We must prioritize Nigerian laws and values over foreign regulations.

Lastly, while huge compensation amounts for players in Europe, like over €100,000 in some cases, might work there, this would be difficult for our local market. We need compensation rules that are fair and proportional to our betting environment.

In conclusion, Nigeria has a great opportunity to establish its own set of strong, player-focused rules that protect bettors while ensuring our industry thrives. At Surebet247, we’re fully committed to being part of that positive change."

In conclusion, while Nigeria can learn much from the European situation, the implementation of such rules needs careful adaptation to local contexts to ensure that they protect players without stifling the market.