THE AUSTRIAN DILEMMA: TO LIBERALISE OR NOT TO LIBERALISE?

What did the past year bring to the Austrian gambling market? Well, where do we start…

Let us start with the status quo: Austria is one of the last EU Member States with a gambling monopoly in place. The monopoly extends to online casino games, including online slots and poker. However, this may change with the envisaged amendment of the Austrian Gambling Act (Glücksspielgesetz, “GSpG”). The biggest question: Will Austria finally introduce a multi-licensing system and open the online gambling market to private operators? A multi-licensing approach already applies to the Austrian retail gambling market, with multiple licenses available for land-based betting, slot machines and casinos (while the latter have all been awarded to the same company, Casinos Austria AG).

The past year has brought developments, challenges and uncertainties that kept operators, authorities and experts alike on their toes. And then, there are the players, largely backed up by litigation funders, who continue to pursue the refund of online casino losses and enforcement of civil judgements in Austria and abroad.

The past, present and (near) future of the Austrian gambling regulation

In Austria, online gambling is subject to a monopoly. The monopoly right to offer online gambling lies exclusively with Austrian Lotteries (Österreichische Lotterien GmbH), making Austrian Lotteries the de facto monopolist. Following the last concession tender that took place in 2021 the respective concession was – once again – awarded to Austrian Lotteries. The majority shareholder (over 70%) of Austrian Lotteries is the Austrian land-based casino monopolist Casinos Austria AG. The majority shares in Casinos Austria AG (over 60%) are held by Allwyn Entertainment. Thus, the Republic of Austria, via its state holding company ÖBAG, is only a minority shareholder in the de facto monopoly operators.

The exclusive lottery concession held by Austrian Lotteries combines so-called electronic lotteries (elektronische Lotterien), including online casino, slots and poker, with all forms of traditional lotteries, such as lottery draws and instant lotteries. In the history of Austrian gambling legislation, Austrian Lotteries always held this concession.

The lotteries concession is valid for 15 years. The current concession expires in September 2027 but the GSpG allows the term to be extended by up to one year. Also, there are very concrete political negotiations about a reform of the GSpG, which may include the option of extending the term of the current lotteries concession even longer.

More groundbreakingly though, the negotiations are revolving around the introduction of a licensing system that offers multiple licenses for online gambling, which, for the first time, would allow private operators to obtain Austrian online gambling licenses. However, so far there have been no details set for the licensing procedure, suitability requirements or any kind of transitional regime for moving the current EU-licensed “grey market” operators into a locally regulated and supervised licensing system.

The amendments are also expected to remove the operation of video lottery terminals from the lotteries concession and, in fact, from the GSpG as a whole, and reduce the maximum number of land-based casino concessions from 15 to 12. This is not surprising, especially taking into consideration the background and status quo: While the number of land-based casino concessions had been increased from 12 to 15 back in 2010 following the CJEU’s Engelmann judgment (C- 64/08) and criticism on the lack of a fair and transparent concession tender, the three additional concessions were never granted. Video lottery terminals, the operation of which is currently covered by the lottery concession held by Austrian Lotteries, shall be phased out completely after the expiry of the current lottery concession in autumn 2027.

In addition, it is expected that the amendments will introduce stricter responsible gaming requirements, advertising restrictions and product limitations, including for the locally licensed land-based slot machine sector. While the operation of land-based slot machine premises is regulated at the level of Austria’s nine federal states, the local laws must be in line with the general framework stipulated by the GSpG.

To address the criticism towards the fact that one single authority – the Austrian Tax Office (Finanzamt Österreich) within the Ministry of Finance – currently serves as a licensing, supervisory and tax authority and, at the same time, the Republic of Austria, via its state holding company ÖBAG, holds a minority stake in the de facto monopoly operators, the amendments to the GSpG are expected to introduce a new gambling authority with extensive investigative powers. The new authority shall be responsible for licensing, supervision, enforcement and player protection.

In an attempt to introduce a stricter and more comprehensive compliance framework, the amendments will likely add new enforcement measures, including network-level blocking of websites and payment blocking, but also a mandatory cross-operator player exclusion register that will apply across lotteries, online gambling, and land-based slots, and a formal whitelist of licensed operators as well as a blacklist for unlicensed operators.

As the current lottery concession expires on 30 September 2027, the concession tender is expected to commence in late 2026/early 2027, depending on whether and how long the term of the concession can be extended. This will also impact the timing for a potential future online gambling licensing procedure.

In any case, Austria will inevitably have to make a final decision: Will one of the last European online gambling monopolies fall?

The spirit of liberalization and the legislator’s increased understanding that protecting players works far better in a licensing model than by retaining prohibitive legislation is also visible in the federal state of Salzburg: As of January 2026, Salzburg allows retail slot machines outside of land-based casinos, opening a new retail slots market in Austria.

According to the general framework stipulated by the GSpG, the number of slot machines outside casinos is limited to a maximum of three licences per Federal State. However, not all Federal States have made use of their competence to license slot machines outside casinos. The Federal States that currently allow such operations are Lower Austria, Upper Austria, Burgenland, Styria, Carinthia and – as a most recent addition – Salzburg.

The local licensing procedure in Salzburg has not yet commenced as the regulator is awaiting further developments at the level of the GSpG and nationwide concessions.

The online and land-based sportsbook sectors are also regulated at the level of the Austrian Federal States and remain unaffected by the envisaged changes to the GSpG. The liberal regulation, offering an unlimited number of licenses available to private operators, has created a thriving sports betting industry in Austria, which, however, has been heavily hit by a massive tax raise from 2% on turnover up to 5% on turnover as of 1 April 2025.

On the bright side, the Austrian Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof) delivered some positive news for betting operators.

In a decision published in November 2025 (9 Ob 76/25d), the Supreme Court confirmed that bets on e-sport events (in this case bets on e-sport football games) do not qualify as games of chance pursuant to the GSpG.

Further, the Supreme Court recently also confirmed that accumulator bets (i.e., the option to combine multiple individual selections on different events/outcomes into a single bet) do not fall under the GSpG (8 Ob 158/25f, published in April 2026). The plaintiff had argued that accumulator bets should be considered games of chance, as the outcome of such bets would predominantly depend on chance. As the operator does not hold a concession pursuant to the GSpG, the plaintiff argued that the concluded contracts are null and void and, thus, claimed back his losses. However, the Supreme Court held that also in accumulator bets, the participant can, in theory, apply their knowledge about the outcome of the underlying sports event so that accumulator bets do not qualify as games of chance but as betting under Austrian law.

The next months will be defining the future of Austria’s gambling market. BRANDL TALOS is your best bet for staying posted and making the most out of new market opportunities in the re-regulated Austrian gambling market. Reach out to receive our weekly updates on regulation.

And what about the player refund claims?

If you happen to have read our previous article, you know that more recently Austrian players have started filing claims for the refund of online casino losses not only against the entities operating or having operated the online gambling offers available in Austria but also damages claims against directors, claiming that the directors are liable for online casino losses under tort law.

The Austrian Supreme Court had doubts as regards the applicability of Austrian law to tort claims against directors and made a reference for a preliminary ruling to the CJEU in the Wunner case (C-77/24). In its decision issued on 9 March 2026, the CJEU held that claims against directors fall within the scope of the Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations. The CJEU further ruled that the place where the damage (i.e., the losses) occurs is the player’s country of residence, as the place from where the player participated in the offer. As a result, the law of this country (here: Austrian law) applies regardless of where the operator or the player accounts are located.

Following the CJEU judgement in the Wunner case, the Austrian Supreme Court resumed the national proceedings and confirmed – in line with the CJEU’s view – that (i) tort claims filed by Austrian players against directors of foreign casino operators are generally admissible and (ii) Austrian law (and jurisdiction) apply to such claims in a series of identical decisions, the first of which was case number 9 Ob 8/26f of 19 February 2026.

However, this battle is far from over, as the Austrian courts will now have to assess the tort claims against directors on the merits. Very different from the “traditional” online casino refund claims against operating entities, which have been brought under unjust enrichment law, there are a lot more means of defending tort claims. The courts will also have to consider additional aspects such as the three-year statute of limitation applicable to tort claims.

As mentioned in our previous article, some Austrian players are trying to enforce the Austrian judgements in Malta, where many of the foreign online casino operators are based and licensed.

Enforcement of such claims is based on the principle of mutual recognition of civil judgements given by the courts of one Member State before the courts of another Member State. However, in 2023 Malta introduced Article 56A to its Gaming Act, pursuant to which Maltese courts may refuse the recognition of foreign judgements if they consider such judgements to infringe Maltese public policy. The purpose was to codify Malta’s public policy as per Article 45 of the Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgements in civil and commercial matters (“Regulation (EU) 1215/2012”), which allows a court to block enforcement of a judgment delivered by the courts of another Member State in case such judgement violates the public order of the Member State where the judgement shall be enforced. In the enforcement proceedings initiated by Austrian players in Malta so far, the Maltese courts have refused the recognition of Austrian judgements but have based their decisions primarily directly on Article 45 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 (and not on Article 56A of the Maltese Gaming Act). The first instance decisions were appealed and an appeal judgement is yet to be rendered.

In 2024, the Commercial Court in Vienna (Handelsgericht Wien) filed a request for a preliminary ruling to the CJEU, in essence asking whether Article 56A of the Maltese Gaming Act is in line with EU law (C-683/24, Spielerschutz Sigma). The CJEU’s Advocate General Emiliou delivered his Opinion on 23 April 2026, holding that he considers the request for a preliminary ruling inadmissible. However, in case the CJEU decides to assess the merits, the Advocate General takes the view that national measures and the general approach adopted by Maltese courts and aimed at preventing the recognition and enforcement of certain foreign judgments are contrary to EU law. It remains to be seen whether the CJEU will dismiss the request for a preliminary ruling as inadmissible and, in particular, whether it will – similar to the Advocate General – make statements on the merits of the case. In any case, we will be closely monitoring the further developments in the Spielerschutz Sigma case, which will also be particularly relevant for the further course of the enforcement proceedings in Malta.

Last but not least, there has been an update in the Austrian preliminary ruling procedure Mr Green (C-198/24), talking the justification of requests for provisional bank account seizures filed with Austrian courts but concerning bank accounts held in other Member States also mentioned in our last article.

In his opinion issued on 30 October 2025, Advocate General Emiliou stated that, when deciding whether to grant a preservation order to freeze the bank account of a debtor, courts may consider all relevant factors, which include previous actions by the debtor and legal obstacles in the debtor’s residence country (in this case Article 56A of the Maltese Gambling Act blocking the enforcement of Austrian judgments and the termination of a contract with an Austrian payment service provider). However, the Advocate General held that the players must show sufficient evidence of a real risk that the foreign operators might have dissipated, concealed, or destroyed assets or disposed of them at an undervalue before the players can collect their money or are able to enforce the judgement. Ultimately, the Advocate General shifted responsibility to the national courts, which, in his opinion, have to conduct an overall assessment of the circumstances of the individual case to determine whether there is a concrete danger at the time of application. Finally, the Advocate General warned that referring such cases to the CJEU too early may destroy the necessary “element of surprise” of the EAPO process and suggested that courts should refrain from submitting requests for a preliminary ruling and only do so subsequent to the potential implementation of the preservation order. The CJEU has not yet announced a date for its judgement.

The downfall of player claims relating to loot boxes

As mentioned in our last article, videogames with loot box features that enable real-money in-game purchases have also been caught by the player refund claims wave in the past years.

In its first landmark decision of 18 December 2025 (6 Ob 228/24h), the Austrian Supreme Court held that the paid loot boxes available in the videogame EA Sports FC (former name: FIFA) are not games of chance pursuant to the GSpG, inter alia clarifying that loot boxes must not be assessed as an isolated item but as part of the (skill) game as a whole. Although the contents of the individual loot boxes are randomly generated, the overall outcome in the game is significantly influenced by player skill, strategy and gameplay decisions.

It remains to be seen whether the Austrian Supreme Court will soon also have to deal with other new gaming and betting products, such as mystery boxes or prediction markets. Stay tuned.