Starting point: Why “it’s your own fault” falls short from a legal perspective.
Those who lose money in an arcade, betting shop or similar establishment often hear: “That’s your own risk.” However, this view only applies if the operator complies with all legal obligations to protect the public. Gambling is not considered by law to be an ordinary leisure market, but rather a highly regulated sector with special protective requirements – especially for people at risk of addiction. This is particularly evident in the nationwide OASIS blocking system and the associated control and access obligations.
From a civil law perspective, the decisive factor is: If mandatory player protection regulations are disregarded, claims for reimbursement and damages can arise – even in land-based gambling.
Legal framework: OASIS and access ban
The State Treaty on Gambling 2021 (GlüStV 2021) establishes a cross-game exclusion system to protect players. The gambling supervisory authority of the state of Hesse is responsible.
Banned individuals are not permitted to participate in public gambling – this explicitly includes local gambling halls.
In the terrestrial area, an identity check including a comparison with the blocklist is mandatory upon entry. According to official regulations, access must be refused if a barrier is in place.
Violations constitute administrative offenses and can result in fines of up to 500,000 euros as well as licensing consequences. This public-law sanction underlines the protective nature of the norms.
Civil law claims: restitution and compensation for damages
One starting point is the law of unjust enrichment (§ 134 BGB): If someone obtains something without legal basis – for example, due to a prohibited contract – repayment can be demanded.
In a preliminary ruling concerning sports betting, the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) clarified that Section 762 of the German Civil Code (BGB) does not automatically preclude a claim for reimbursement and that Section 817 Sentence 2 of the German Civil Code (BGB) does not apply in individual cases if the purpose of the prohibition would otherwise be undermined.
Applied to gambling arcade cases: If access is granted despite an OASIS block, there is a strong indication that bets were placed without a valid legal basis.
In addition, damages may be claimed in accordance with Section 823 Paragraph 1. Section 2 of the German Civil Code (BGB) may be considered if protective laws have been violated. The case law – in particular reports on the Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt – recognizes § 8 para. 2 und 3 GlüStV 2021 als Schutzgesetze mit auch wirtschaftlicher Schutzrichtung an.
Other typical breaches of duty
Mehrfachbespielung trotz Identifikationssystem
The gaming regulations (SpielV) require a personal means of identification for each player. The explicit goal is to prevent simultaneous gaming on multiple devices. The Higher Administrative Court of North Rhine-Westphalia emphasizes that operators must actively prevent multiple devices from being used simultaneously.
“Preheating” and crediting
Section 8 of the Gaming Ordinance prohibits the “preheating” of devices and the granting of credit for the purpose of gaming. If staff advance funds for their services, a credit-like structure is at least likely – clearly undesirable from a regulatory perspective.
Evidence and statute of limitations
Key evidence includes:
- Proof of the OASIS blockade
- Documentation of losses
- Witnesses (if applicable), video recordings
Claims are regularly calculated as net loss. The statute of limitations is a common objection raised by the opposing party and should be examined early on.
Conclusion
Gaming arcades are not merely commercial enterprises, but are subject to strict protective obligations. If an OASIS block is ignored or other protective mechanisms are circumvented, claims for reimbursement and damages can realistically be enforced.
