The ECJ hearing took place yesterday (24 September). The dispute could determine whether billions of euros in online sports bets placed without German licences between 2013 and 2021 were legally valid.
The central question
The ECJ must decide whether online bets placed during Germany’s transitional licensing period were unlawful and therefore void under civil law.
A ruling against operators could open the door for players to reclaim losses, potentially amounting to billions, while unraveling years of revenues for companies.
The case originated from a claim by a bettor who lost €3,719 with Tipico between 2013 and 2018, when the operator held a Maltese but not a German licence.
German licences only became available in 2021 following repeated delays in the federal licensing process.
Arguments in court
According to István Cocron, CEO and founder of Rechtsanwalt Cocron, who was present at the hearing and spoke to NEXT.io, the plaintiffs argued that Tipico deliberately offered sports betting without the required German authorisation, depriving players of essential safeguards.
Tipico countered that it had met all conditions for a licence but was blocked by flaws in Germany’s tendering process, including the arbitrary limit of 20 concessions.
EU member states expressed divergent positions. Belgium, Greece, and Portugal backed Germany’s restrictive licensing, arguing that consumer protection justifies national barriers.
Malta, where Tipico holds its primary licence, maintained that its player protection standards are robust and should be recognised across the EU.
The European Commission, also supporting Germany, said it believed that the 2012 Interstate Treaty on Gambling (GlüStV) complied with EU law and that operators cannot retroactively claim legality for unlicensed activity.
A cocaine comparison
Tipico, however, argued that its Malta Gaming Authority (MGA) licence should have covered its operations and, according to Cocron, the operator said it had been left under the “impression” that no separate German licence was required.
During the hearing, an ECJ lawyer questioned whether one member state’s decision to legalise a controversial product could obligate other states to recognise it, drawing an analogy with the sale of cocaine.
He suggested that if such a product were legal in one country, it would raise questions about cross-border recognition and EU law.
“Would all other member states then have to accept cocaine sales in their countries as well,” Cocron summarised the lawyer’s arguments.
Malta rejected the comparison, noting that gambling involves civil claims for damages rather than criminal offences, and that the civil law implications for players in each member state must be considered.
Industry implications
The case is considered a test for thousands of lawsuits already pending in German courts. A ruling against Tipico could set a precedent obliging operators to repay historic losses to players – while empowering litigation funders who have been acquiring claims en masse.
Earlier this year, Tipico CEO Axel Hefer sought to distance the company from Malta’s controversial “Bill 55,” which shields operators from foreign rulings.
“It’s clear to us that we don’t hide behind Maltese law. We have never invoked Bill 55,” Hefer said.
Hefer acknowledged the financial risk but insisted Tipico acted in line with EU law: “Depending on the ECJ’s decision, we will make repayments or not. We adhered to international accounting standards and will make provisions if payouts become probable.”
He also criticised the wave of retroactive lawsuits, many of which are driven not by players but by litigation funders: “They are predominantly funders betting big money on these cases, having bought claims for meagre amounts.”
What comes next
The Advocate General is scheduled to deliver his opinion on 11 December, with a final ruling expected in 2026.
“In this matter, one will first have to wait for the Advocate General’s opinion, but judging by the tendency, I would assess the outcome of the hearing as positive for the affected players,” Cocron told NEXT.io.
Earlier this month, in a separate case, ECJ Advocate General Nicholas Emiliou concluded that gamblers seeking reimbursement from foreign operators are not abusing European Union law, even if their claims challenge the gambling regulations of another member state.
Dingnews.com 26/09/2025