SPOTLIGHT AUSTRIA
to success, thereby establishing a rational expectation of winning. The assessment of the lootbox (“Packs”) as a whole therefore shows that it may not be considered as a game of chance. The fragmented approach of the claimant of a stand-alone assessment of individual in-game mechanics was therefore clearly rejected by the Austrian Supreme Court. In its legal reasoning the Austrian Supreme Court cited an article published by Rapani law firm last year on the legal classification of loot boxes under gambling law, 13 and used this as a basis for its ruling. The ruling provides legal certainty to publishers. Furthermore, the understanding of the necessity that a product must be considered as a whole may further be applied to other game plays that contain games of chance elements. The basis of evaluation, namely the necessity of an overall assessment of the lootbox as a whole, established by the Austrian Supreme Court in this ruling will need to applied by Austrian courts in all cases where players try to reclaim losses incurred by lootboxes in video games. While the ruling therefore gives legal certainty to publishers of “FIFA”, it also shows that a separate and individual assessment of lootboxes in other video games will need to be undertaken. Case law in this regard will need to be monitored closely, especially as the qualification of a specific lootbox as a game of chance may lead process cost financiers in particular to accept such claims and initiate lawsuits. Betting on e-sports decision of the Austrian Supreme Court Toward the end of 2025, the Austrian Supreme Court published a decision regarding the question of whether betting on e-sports constitutes an illegal games of chance offering.
With its decision dated 23.10.2025, 9 Ob 76/25d, the Austrian Supreme Court had to review a lawsuit of a Viennese customer reclaiming losses incurred when betting on e-sports events online. Firstly, the Austrian Supreme Court confirmed the lower courts’ assessment that the Viennese Betting Act, which does not include explicit provisions concerning online betting offerings, does not apply to online betting offerings that the defendant is offereding from a location outside of Vienna. This assessment is in line with and further strengthens existing case law of the Austrian Supreme Court concerning the permissibility of online betting offerings from outside of the respective state territory. 14 Secondly, the Austrian Supreme Court followed existing Supreme Administrative Court jurisprudence and ruled that betting on e-sports does not constitute a game of chance, as the outcome of a sporting event in sports betting does not depend primarily on chance, because the bettor applies his or her knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the sporting event, and this knowledge outweighs the element of chance with regard to the outcome of the respective sporting events. The Austrian Supreme Court stated that the claimant was unable to provide sufficient arguments as to why this established case law should not apply to betting on e-sports events and therefore dismissed the legal remedy. This ruling of the Austrian Supreme Court offers further clarity concerning the differentiation between games of chance and betting offerings as well as the possibility tof offering online betting from outside the territory of a federal state without holding a license in that federal state. This provides additional legal certainty to online betting operators, especially online betting operators making their betting offering – including betting on e-sport – available from outside of Austria to Austrian customers.
Conclusion These recent decisions by the European Court of Justice
13 Rapani/Hohenthanner/Lamprecht, Zur glücksspielrechtlichen Einordnung von Lootboxen, MR 2025, 36. 14 See for example: Supreme Court dated 27.01.2023, 1 Ob 176/22x (Styria); Supreme Court dated 13.12.2023, 8 Ob 112/23p (Tyrol).
PAGE 50
IMGL MAGAZINE | MARCH 2026
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker