Munich, 12 October 2026
Another senate of the Higher Regional Court (OLG) of Munich has now also awarded players damages for deposit limit violations in connection with online sports betting.
Once again, there is a significant decision protecting online players: the Higher Regional Court of Munich has ruled that sports betting providers must answer for losses if they fail to enforce the statutory monthly deposit limit. At the same time, the senate confirmed repayment claims for bets placed during the period in which the provider did not yet hold a German licence.
The decision at a glance:
In a judgment of 3 September 2026, the 14th Civil Senate of the OLG Munich has now also dismissed the appeal of a Malta-based sports betting provider against a judgment of the Regional Court (LG) of Augsburg of 6 May 2026. The provider must pay the claimant player EUR 23,219.15 plus interest as well as an additional EUR 7,320.59 in capitalised interest, and must indemnify him against his pre-trial legal fees.
Following the 36th Civil Senate, another senate of the OLG Munich has thus clearly sided with players. The senate granted leave to appeal on points of law to the Federal Court of Justice (BGH), which is why the judgment is not yet final.
The facts: for around ten years, the claimant, who lives in Bavaria, placed bets via the provider’s German-language website. He paid part of his gaming balance in cash using a customer card at retail betting shops operated as franchisees of the provider. The provider held a Maltese licence; it was not granted a German licence until 9 October 2020.
On the one hand, the claimant is reclaiming his losses from the period without a German licence. On the other hand, for the period after the Interstate Treaty on Gambling 2021 (GlüStV 2021) came into force, he claimed those deposits that exceeded the statutory monthly limit of EUR 1,000.
What is the deposit limit under Section 6c GlüStV 2021?
Since 1 July 2021, players of online gambling must set a monthly deposit limit that applies across all providers and that, as a rule, may not exceed EUR 1,000.00. The central limit file (“LUGAS”) is used to check that the total of all deposits with all licensed providers does not exceed this limit. Without a set limit, the provider may not allow the player to play at all. Once the limit has been reached, the provider may not accept any further deposits. An increase is only possible in exceptional cases and only if the player’s financial capacity has been proven.
The key findings of the OLG Munich on the deposit limit violation:
- The deposit limit violation renders the betting contracts void.
- The senate regards the obligation not to allow participation in gambling without a set limit as a statutory prohibition within the meaning of Section 134 of the German Civil Code (BGB). It is not, the senate held, a mere regulatory rule governing business operations, such as shop opening hours. The provision prohibits participation in gambling itself. Its purpose – protecting the individual player from uncontrolled gambling – can only be achieved if contracts concluded in breach of it are invalid. Supervisory measures by the authorities or fines might prevent future violations, but would not compensate the player for losses already incurred.
The deposit limit rule in Section 6c GlüStV 2021 is a protective law – the provider is liable for damages.
- In addition, the senate also affirmed a claim for damages in tort under Section 823(2) BGB. A protective law is a provision that is intended to serve not only the general public but also, specifically, the individual. Anyone who culpably breaches it must compensate for the resulting damage.
In the senate’s view, the limit rule protects the health and assets of the individual player. The fact that it also serves to prevent addiction and to regulate the gambling market does not change this, because these public interest objectives are achieved precisely by protecting the individual.
Long-standing existing customers are also covered by the rule. The provider had argued that the limit obligation only applied to new registrations. The senate did not agree. Otherwise, of all people, long-standing and possibly already addiction-prone players could continue to play without limit, which would run counter to the purpose of a uniform protection system.
Alleged limit increases must be substantiated in detail.
The provider claimed that a limit of EUR 10,000 had been set for the claimant. Because the claimant disputed this and the provider did not substantiate its submission any further, the court assumed that no increased limit existed.
Fault is presumed.
Anyone who objectively breaches a protective law must prove that they are not at fault. In the senate’s view, even if there were technical uncertainties in the cross-provider system, the provider should at least have set up a limit for its own offering.
There is no contributory negligence on the part of the player.
Neither voluntary participation, nor failing to read the terms and conditions, nor refraining from a voluntary self-exclusion reduces the claim. The limit provisions are intended to protect players from the dangers of online gambling – and therefore also from themselves. This responsibility lies with the provider.
The licence does not protect the provider.
A licence that has been granted only legitimises the offering within the statutory limits. It does not make every betting contract valid that was concluded in disregard of mandatory player protection rules.
By far the largest part of the amount claimed consisted of the losses from the period without a German licence.
Repayment of losses from the period without a German licence
By far the largest part of the claim consisted of the losses from the period before the licence was granted. Here, too, the senate found in favour of the player:
- Betting contracts are void: Anyone offering sports betting without a German licence violates Section 4(1) and (4) of the Interstate Treaty on Gambling 2012 (GlüStV 2012). The contracts are void under Section 134 BGB, and the stakes must be repaid minus any winnings. The Maltese licence does not entitle the provider to offer its services in Germany.
- Retail or online – irrelevant: Since the provider did not hold any German licence whatsoever before 9 October 2020, it does not matter whether individual bets were placed in a betting shop. Deposits made via the customer card are also attributed to the provider.
- The ban was compatible with EU law: Any shortcomings in the licensing procedure at the time do not invalidate the prohibition on offering bets without a licence. There was a prohibition subject to authorisation, not the other way round. The risk of a licence possibly having been wrongly refused must not be shifted onto the players.
- No limitation: The limitation period only begins once the player knows that there is no German licence or is unaware of this due to gross negligence. A reference to a Maltese licence in the terms and conditions is not sufficient for this.
- No exclusion under Section 817 sentence 2 BGB: This provision excludes repayment if the person making the payment has knowingly violated a prohibition themselves. However, the provider was unable to prove that the player knew about the illegality.
No stay despite pending CJEU proceedings.
The provider had applied for the proceedings to be stayed pending a decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The senate rejected this on the grounds that the legal position was sufficiently clear. It follows the detailed reasoning of the Federal Court of Justice in its referral order of 25 July 2024 (case no. I ZR 90/23). According to the judgment, a litigation funding agreement with a mere assignment by way of security also does not change the fact that the player can bring the action himself and make use of his consumer place of jurisdiction before German courts.
Assessment: Munich case law is becoming more settled. However, there is not yet a uniform line within the OLG Munich on the deposit limit issue. The 27th Civil Senate, for example, rejected claims for deposit limit violations in a judgment of 5 January 2026 (case no. 27 U 2436/25 e), classifying the provision as purely a matter of regulatory supervision. An appeal on points of law against that judgment is pending before the Federal Court of Justice. The 36th Civil Senate, by contrast, ruled in a judgment of 19 June 2026 (case no. 36 U 713/25 e) that a breach of the deposit limit renders the gambling contracts void. The 14th Civil Senate now follows this view and goes one step further by additionally affirming a claim for damages. A final clarification by the Federal Court of Justice is still pending.
What does this mean for affected players?
- Losses from sports betting with providers without a German licence can, in principle, be reclaimed.
- Even with licensed providers, claims are conceivable since July 2021 if it was possible to deposit more than EUR 1,000 per month without an effectively increased limit being in place.
- Long-standing customers whose account already existed before July 2021 are protected just as much as new customers.
- Players do not have to list every single bet. The provider holds the complete gaming and account data.
How to proceed:
- Keep your bank statements, credit card statements and receipts for cash deposits.
- Ask the provider for a statement of your deposits and withdrawals.
- Check for each month since July 2021 whether your deposits exceeded EUR 1,000.00.
- Have possible claims reviewed promptly, as limitation periods are running.
Rechtsanwalt Cocron GmbH & Co. KG, with offices in Munich and Berlin, represents players throughout Germany in reclaiming losses from online sports betting and online casinos, including claims based on breaches of the deposit limit. We will be happy to review your documents and assess your prospects of success.
