Lawyer Cocron has successfully taken action against a major provider of online sports betting in another set of proceedings. The competent court not only established the company’s liability for disregarding statutory deposit limits, but also recognised an additional repayment claim based on a violation of the so-called button solution in consumer law.
The Local Court (Amtsgericht, AG) Lichtenberg awarded a client represented by the Cocron law firm, who had taken part in online sports betting, a four-figure claim for damages against Malta-based Tipico Co. Ltd. Between May and July 2025, the claimant had made deposits that clearly exceeded the statutory permissible limit. The betting provider, however, failed to prevent or effectively restrict these deposits.
What happened?
Under the rules of the Interstate Treaty on Gambling 2021 (GlüStV), a monthly deposit limit of EUR 1,000 generally applies to online sports betting. Exceeding this amount is only permitted if the provider has first checked the player’s financial capacity and, on that basis, approved a higher individual limit. In the present case, however, the claimant was able to raise his deposit limit himself without any credit or income check being carried out. In this way, he paid more than EUR 7,700 into his player account in June 2025 alone.
The court affirmed two independent legal bases for the claim:
– Damages for breach of contractual obligations (Sections 280, 241 of the German Civil Code, BGB):
In the court’s view, compliance with the statutory deposit limits is one of the ancillary contractual obligations of a sports betting provider. These provisions serve in particular to protect players from financial harm and excessive losses. Since the provider had not adequately checked the claimant’s financial circumstances, the court found a culpable breach of duty. The amount of the damage was determined using the so-called difference hypothesis. This compares the injured party’s actual financial situation with the situation that would have existed without the breach of duty. The decisive figure was therefore the difference between the deposits actually made and the statutory maximum amount of EUR 1,000 per month.
– Repayment claim for unjust enrichment (Section 812 BGB):
In addition, the court found that the betting contracts concluded between the parties were also invalid for a further reason. The provider had violated the requirements of the so-called button solution under Section 312j(3) BGB. Under this statutory rule, a button by which a consumer places an order subject to payment must be clearly labelled with wording such as “zahlungspflichtig bestellen” (“order with obligation to pay”) or a comparable phrase. In the court’s view, the label “Wette abgeben” (“place bet”) used by the provider did not meet these statutory requirements. As a result, the individual betting contracts had not been validly concluded in law.
What does the judgment mean for affected players?
Players who were able to raise their monthly deposit limit without a prior check of their financial capacity regularly have the option to reclaim the losses that exceed the statutory maximum of EUR 1,000 per month.
Additional claims may also exist if the provider concerned did not comply with the statutory requirements for labelling its order or betting buttons and the obligation to pay was not clearly recognisable for the consumer.
The judgment also makes clear that German courts can have jurisdiction even if the sports betting provider concerned has its registered office in another member state of the European Union – such as Malta. The basis for this is the consumer’s place of jurisdiction under Art. 18 of the Brussels Ia Regulation (EuGVVO). Affected consumers can therefore in principle assert their claims at their own place of residence.
A possible assignment of the claim to a litigation funder also does not prevent the claims from being enforced in court and does not lead to the loss of jurisdiction of the German courts.
How should those affected proceed?
Players should secure their bank statements, transaction records and the deposit overviews from the sports betting provider concerned and have them carefully reviewed. In particular, it must be examined whether the statutory monthly deposit limit was exceeded in the relevant period and whether the provider actually carried out the checks required for this.
Rechtsanwalt Cocron GmbH & Co. KG, with offices in Munich and Berlin, assesses the individual prospects of success for affected players and supports them in enforcing possible repayment and damages claims against online sports betting providers.
