Lottoland loses landmark EU court battle over banned online slots

Lottoland lost a landmark European court battle on 16 April after judges ruled that Germany was within its rights to ban online slot machines and lottery betting, and that players who lost money during the ban could sue to recover it.

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) held that member states may prohibit certain online gambling services even where the operator holds a licence in another EU country, and may allow consumers to reclaim the stakes they lost.

Lottoland, which is licensed by the Malta Gaming Authority and offered virtual slots and lottery draw betting to German customers, faced a challenge after a player who lost stakes between June 2019 and July 2021 brought a restitution claim. Those claims were later assigned to a company that pursued the action before a Maltese court.

A foreign licence is not a shield

The ruling confirms that an EU operating licence does not give an online gambling operator the right to serve customers in countries where its products are banned, and that consumers in those markets can pursue civil claims to recover losses. It strengthens the legal basis of recent player-claims cases, which have seen customers in Germany, Austria and the Netherlands sue operators for historic grey-market activity.

The Court also held that EU law does not prevent member states from prohibiting online casino games, slot machines and certain forms of betting — such as wagering on lottery results — where the aim is to steer gambling into regulated channels and suppress illegal markets.

Why judges singled out online play

Judges pointed to factors that make online gambling more hazardous than land-based play: permanent access, the isolation and anonymity of players, the absence of social controls, potentially unlimited frequency of play, and the particular appeal of online products to young and vulnerable people.

The Court addressed Germany's decision to scrap its blanket online-gambling prohibition from 1 July 2021 and replace it with a licensing regime. That reform did not undermine the legality of the earlier ban, the judges said: such a shift can reflect a policy of controlled expansion rather than any admission that the original rules were flawed, and a transitional period does not stop the legal consequences of the earlier prohibition from being applied.

What it means for refunds

On player refunds, the Court found that contracts between consumers and operators offering services prohibited in the consumer's home country can be declared void under national law. An action to recover stakes lost under such a contract is not barred by EU law, and a player's decision to gamble despite an operator holding a foreign licence is not enough to constitute an abuse of rights.

The judgment is a reference for a preliminary ruling: the CJEU has interpreted EU law and left the Maltese court to apply it to the facts. The interpretation, however, binds courts across the bloc facing similar disputes.

The decision lands as Malta operates its own controversial Bill 55, which seeks to protect MGA-licensed operators from liability arising from their activities. If you lost money on an unlicensed site, our free eligibility check can help you understand whether your situation may qualify for a legal review.