ECJ ADVOCATE GENERAL SUPPORTS MEMBER STATE LICENSING POWERS AMID RISE IN PLAYER LOSS CLAIMS
A legal opinion from the European Court of Justice has reinforced the authority of EU member states to enforce their own gambling licensing regimes, offering important guidance at a time when player loss claims are increasing across several regulated markets.
The view, delivered by Advocate General Emiliou, centres on the interpretation of Article 56 TFEU, a cornerstone of EU law governing the free movement of services between member states. While the principle is often cited by operators challenging national restrictions, the opinion makes clear that local licensing requirements can still be enforced, provided they are proportionate and compliant with EU rules.
The case itself was referred to the ECJ by Germany’s Bundesgerichtshof in 2024 and involves a dispute between a player and Tipico. At its core is the question of whether gambling services offered without a local licence can be deemed unlawful, and whether players are therefore entitled to recover losses incurred during that period.
In his assessment, the Advocate General concluded that where a member state imposes a licensing requirement that is compatible with EU law, national authorities are entitled to act against operators that fail to comply. Crucially, he also reaffirmed that gambling regulation remains largely within the competence of individual member states, reflecting longstanding recognition of the sector’s sensitivity.
This position is rooted in the view that gambling presents distinct social risks, shaped by “moral, religious and cultural differences” across the EU. As a result, governments retain the right to design regulatory frameworks tailored to their domestic markets, particularly where consumer protection is concerned.
The opinion arrives against a backdrop of increasing legal challenges linked to so-called player loss claims. These cases, which have gained traction in jurisdictions including Germany, Austria and Netherlands, typically involve individuals seeking to recover gambling losses on the basis that operators were not locally licensed at the time the bets were placed.
In the Tipico case, the claimant argued that the absence of a German licence rendered the contract void, entitling them to reclaim losses incurred before the introduction of the country’s modern regulatory framework under the State Treaty on Gambling. Tipico, meanwhile, maintained that the German system in place at the time lacked transparency and that it had made efforts to obtain the necessary licence.
While the Advocate General’s opinion provides clarity on the principle that local licensing rules can be enforced, it stops short of delivering a definitive outcome for the case itself. Several key determinations have been left to the referring German court, including whether the national framework in question met EU proportionality standards.
This measured approach reflects the broader complexity of gambling regulation within the EU. Unlike other sectors, there is no harmonised framework governing gambling services across the bloc. Instead, a patchwork of national regimes continues to coexist, often leading to legal disputes where cross-border activity is involved.
For operators, the opinion underscores the importance of securing local licences in each market where services are offered, regardless of broader EU freedoms. For regulators, it reinforces their ability to maintain strict controls, particularly where consumer protection and market integrity are at stake.
However, the wider implications for the growing wave of player loss litigation remain uncertain. Some stakeholders had hoped for a more conclusive stance that could stem the rise of such claims, which have created financial and legal exposure for operators across multiple jurisdictions.
As it stands, the ECJ’s eventual ruling will be closely watched for further clarity. In the meantime, the Advocate General’s opinion signals continued judicial support for national regulatory autonomy, even as tensions persist between local enforcement and the principles of the EU single market.
