Reclaiming losses in Austria: what the Supreme Court says – and what applies to winnings

Anyone in Austria who has lost money at an online casino without an Austrian concession sooner or later asks whether those stakes can be recovered. Players in Austrian forums ask exactly this, often pointing out that in Austria only win2day holds a concession as an online casino. The answer of the Supreme Court (OGH) has two sides, and both rest on the same foundation that the overview of the legal situation in Austria describes, with the monopoly, the concession and the planned payment blocking.

On one side is the player's claim to recover lost stakes, on the other the operator's claim to winnings already paid out. Two practical questions come on top: what information a lawsuit needs, and what an Austrian judgment achieves against an operator based abroad.

I

The principle: void gambling contracts (OGH)

The starting point is the gambling monopoly. Under § 3 GSpG the right to conduct games of chance is reserved to the federal state; the act expressly calls this reservation the gambling monopoly. Under § 12a(1) GSpG online casino games count as electronic lotteries. According to the Ministry of Finance (BMF), Österreichische Lotterien GmbH is entitled to run electronic lotteries on win2day until 30 September 2027, and as long as that concession stands, § 14(6) GSpG rules out further lottery concessions.

§ 2(4) GSpG defines prohibited games as games for which no concession or permit under the GSpG exists. According to the BMF, a concession from another EU or EEA state does not entitle an operator to offer gambling in Austria either. For the five casinos in the comparison, the sources name licences from outside Austria: HellSpin holds a Kahnawake licence (KGC, no. 01031) according to Casino.Guru, while AskGamblers and LCB also name Curaçao. Verde Casino holds licence OGL/2024/686/0183 of the Curaçao Gaming Control Board, Izzi Casino licence OGL/2024/570/0396 of the Curaçao Gaming Authority and Starda Casino licence OGL/2024/169/0146 from Curaçao. Nomini holds a licence from Anjouan (Comoros), no. ALSI-202411077-FI2, according to Casino.Guru and AskGamblers; LCB lists no licence or an outdated Curaçao one.

The OGH builds on the definition in § 2(4) GSpG. Under RS0134919, contracts that breach § 2(4) GSpG are absolutely void. RS0102178 deals with the nullity of prohibited gambling contracts under §§ 879 and 1174 ABGB. And under RS0134152, prohibited games do not even give rise to a natural obligation. Such a game therefore creates no liability that either side could rely on. Whatever has passed between player and operator is reclaimed under the law of unjust enrichment, in both directions, as the next two sections show.

This nullity has to be kept apart from the everyday case in which a casino refuses to pay out winnings because of open bonus wagering, missing documents or an alleged breach of its rules. In that case the operator relies on its own terms, not on the GSpG. The most common reasons are summarised on the page withdrawal declined based on the terms of the five casinos.

II

Reclaiming the stakes

According to the settled case law of the OGH, players can reclaim stakes lost in prohibited gambling, as set out in legal principle RS0134152. This means the money that remained with the operator. How that amount has to be set out in court was specified by the OGH in 3 Ob 199/25y; more on that two sections below.

The OGH has dealt several times with the question of whether the Austrian monopoly is compatible with EU law. In 6 Ob 157/25v it held that the Austrian concession system does not breach EU law. In 6 Ob 85/26g the OGH cites the judgment of the Court of Justice of the EU of 16.4.2026 in case C-440/23 (European Lotto and Betting). Beyond this citation in the OGH decision, no information on the content of that judgment is available.

Posts from Austrian forums show how such proceedings run in practice. A typical first step is a formal demand letter sent by lawyers to the operator. One reports: “interwetten hat auf das mahnschreiben allerdings nicht reagiert” – Interwetten did not respond to the demand letter, and his lawyers then prepared a lawsuit. Another accepted a settlement offer and writes: “bin auch dem deal von bwin eingegangen 50%” – he too had accepted bwin's 50 % deal. He later regretted the step. With a 50 % settlement, half of the amount claimed flows back, though without proceedings.

Another frequent question concerns the time after the agreement: how long did it take from concluding the settlement until the money arrived? The posts name no specific periods. This wait has little to do with the withdrawal time in day-to-day casino operation: that is about processing and crediting a regular payout per method, this is about settling an agreement between a lawyer and an operator.

III

The flip side: reclaiming winnings paid out

Nullity works in both directions. Legal principle RS0134919 states that the gambling operator accordingly also has a claim in unjust enrichment for the return of the winnings paid. Anyone who has received more from an operator without an Austrian concession than they deposited is therefore in the very position in which an operator can demand money back.

This worry comes up regularly in the forums. A player who had withdrawn around 4.6k wrote that he was not sure whether this win might be confiscated, and asked for proof. The proof is RS0134919. The principle, however, does not speak of confiscation by an authority but of a claim of the operator itself, which the operator has to assert.

Another player describes the risk that arises when a casino is put under pressure with claims: the operator would then point out that the game took place in Austria without a concession and demand the winnings back. The reply in the same thread names the decisive limitation: unless more was deposited than was paid out. A third player reports on casinos based in Malta: first, many casinos from there no longer pay out, and second, they even sue to get winnings back.

Whether reclaiming makes sense for a player is thus decided by the balance over the entire playing period. Anyone in the red can reclaim lost stakes under RS0134152. Anyone in the black has no loss to claim and, under RS0134919, faces a possible claim by the operator. For ongoing payouts, this case law changes nothing in the casino terms: limits, deadlines and checks still follow the terms and conditions, as the overview of online casino withdrawals shows for all five operators.

IV

What a lawsuit needs to state (3 Ob 199/25y)

In 3 Ob 199/25y the OGH set out what a player has to plead for the reclaim to be conclusive. Three pieces of information are required: the playing period, the sum of deposits and the sum of withdrawals. The difference gives the loss at stake in the proceedings. A mere list of deposits therefore covers only one of the three required items; payouts that have already flowed back are missing from it.

These three figures call for a record that is as complete as possible. Evidence includes the transaction history in the player account, bank statements and statements from credit cards and e-wallets. Anyone who deposited through several channels has to trace each one separately, including payouts that came back through a different channel than the deposit. Which channels the five casinos list for players from Austria is shown by the withdrawal methods page, split into bank, card, e-wallet and crypto.

Besides the amounts, the player account has to be attributable to the person suing. The documents that casinos request anyway help here: ID, proof of address and evidence of the payment method. At Nomini, for example, transaction histories of the payment methods are part of the check, and Izzi Casino requires proof of ownership of the payment method. Which documents each operator requests and when is covered by the page on verification before a withdrawal with documents, timing and duration.

The order of steps matters as well. A player from Austria reports that his account was blocked shortly after a letter reclaiming losses. Once the account is blocked, the transaction history in the player account is no longer easy to access. Screenshots and exports of the history, saved before the first letter to the operator, spare tedious follow-up requests to the casino later.

V

Enforcement against operators abroad

An Austrian judgment is only worth what can be enforced of it. One player sums up the problem in one sentence: a judgment in Austria can be obtained, but it then cannot be enforced at the defendant's seat. He meant an operator based in Malta. For the five casinos in the comparison, the licence details point to Kahnawake, Curaçao and Anjouan; no information is available here on where the operating companies are based.

A blocked account, a cancelled payout or a request that stays pending for weeks, by contrast, are matters of the casino terms and not a subject for a reclaim lawsuit. What each status means and where the terms set deadlines is sorted by cause and operator in the overview of withdrawal problems.

At the level of payment channels there is law in force and a draft. Under § 52(1) GSpG, credit institutions that knowingly forward player payments to operators of prohibited games are penalised. Beyond that, payment blocking is planned according to government bill 594 d.B.: the draft § 56e GSpG provides for payment blocks for prohibited games and prohibits taking part in payment transactions for them; the stop is to take effect within three bank working days. According to the bill, §§ 56a to 56e are to enter into force at the end of 31 December 2026, subject to adoption. The bill is with the Finance Committee, and deliberations have not yet started. According to the parliamentary correspondence, new online concessions are to be awarded from 1.1.2027 and to apply from 1.10.2027.

Anyone looking for support because of losses can find it beyond lawyers too. A player protection unit is set up at the BMF under § 1(4) GSpG, and the BMF lists counselling and treatment facilities for gambling addiction by federal state. Spielsuchthilfe offers free, confidential and, on request, anonymous counselling throughout Austria. An ongoing reclaim is no reason to make new deposits: every further deposit changes the balance that a lawsuit has to set out under 3 Ob 199/25y.