PLAYER CLAIMS
O nline gambling, by its nature, operates across borders and has from the outset existed at the intersection of different legal systems within the European Union. Here we examine the growing wave of disputes between players and online gambling operators, focusing on claims for the recovery of losses where the operator’s activity was unlawful under the law of the player’s country. In particular, we explore the tension between the principle of freedom to provide services and the regulatory autonomy of Member States, as well as the role of the Court of Justice of the European Union in shaping the admissibility of such claims. Introduction Online gambling does not fit easily within traditional regulatory frameworks, which for decades were designed primarily for land-based activities. In the digital environment, geographic boundaries lose much of their relevance. An operator can run its business from one Member State while targeting players across the European Union, often without any physical presence in those jurisdictions. This cross-border business model, built on the provision of services across the internal market, inevitably comes into tension with national gambling regimes, which differ significantly in their level of restrictiveness. Member States have long maintained different regulatory models, ranging from state monopolies, through limited licensing systems, to more liberal regimes. At the same time, operators rely on the principle of freedom to provide services and seek to use licences obtained in one Member State as a basis for operating in others. This tension between national regulatory autonomy and the foundations of the internal market has, in recent years, become one of the central legal challenges in the online gambling sector. Against this background, a new category of disputes has begun to emerge. These cases involve players seeking to recover losses incurred in games offered without the required national licence. What initially appeared in a limited number of jurisdictions has now developed into a broader trend affecting an increasing number of Member States. At their core, these disputes raise a fundamental question: can an operator’s activity, lawful in its country of establishment, produce legal effects in the player’s country if it breaches mandatory local rules? And if not, does the player have a right to recover the funds that were lost?
Answers to these questions have gradually taken shape in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. The Court has been defining the limits of cross-border gambling activity and its civil law consequences. This article looks at that development through recent cases and related legislative changes, showing how EU law and national law together are shaping a new framework for operator liability and player protection. The Wunner case, director liability and applicable law One of the most recent and widely discussed cases in this area is C-77/24 (Wunner) 1 , which illustrates how player claims for the recovery of losses may evolve. In typical disputes, consumers bring claims directly against gambling operators, relying on the invalidity of the gambling contract and unjust enrichment. In Wunner, however, the Austrian player went a step further. Instead of suing the operator itself, he brought a claim against the members of the board of a Malta-based company. This approach was driven by economic reality: the operator was insolvent, making a standard restitution claim largely ineffective. The claimant therefore relied on tort-based liability, arguing that a breach of Austrian gambling rules of a protective nature could give rise to personal liability on the part of those managing the company. The CJEU’s judgment of 15 January 2026 did not decide on the existence of such liability. Instead, it clarified key conflict- of-law issues. The Court held that claims of this kind do not fall within the company law exclusion under the Rome II Regulation, since they are not based on corporate duties but on the breach of rules of general application, binding erga omnes. At the same time, the Court confirmed that the place where the damage occurs, relevant for determining the applicable law, is the country from which the player participated in the game. In practice, this leads to the application of the law of the consumer’s country. While this generally strengthens the player’s position, it does not remove the need to establish the elements of tort liability under that law. The Wunner case settles an important principle. It opens the door to claims being brought against company directors, which may be particularly relevant where operators are insolvent. At the same time, it does not create any form of automatic liability for management. Early reactions from national courts confirm
1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:62024CJ0077
IMGL MAGAZINE | JUNE 2026
PAGE 25
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker