{"id":5982,"date":"2026-06-20T14:22:50","date_gmt":"2026-06-20T12:22:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ra-cocron.de\/?post_type=news&p=5982"},"modified":"2026-10-27T08:57:42","modified_gmt":"2026-10-27T07:57:42","slug":"olg-munich-confirms-repayment-claims-sports-betting-deposit-limit","status":"publish","type":"news","link":"https:\/\/ra-cocron.de\/en\/news\/olg-munich-confirms-repayment-claims-sports-betting-deposit-limit\/","title":{"rendered":"OLG Munich confirms repayment claims for deposit limit breaches"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

If you take part in sports betting online, you enjoy comprehensive statutory protection \u2013 even if the provider holds a valid gambling licence. In current appeal proceedings, the Higher Regional Court of Munich (OLG M\u00fcnchen) has now expressly clarified that gambling contracts are void if they were concluded in breach of the statutory requirements on the monthly deposit limit<\/a>. Lawyer Cocron successfully obtained this decision in favour of an affected player.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What happened?<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Between April and May 2022, the claimant took part in various online sports bets<\/a> via the German-language website of a well-known sports betting provider based in Malta. Although the Interstate Treaty on Gambling 2021 (Gl\u00fcStV 2021) had already been binding since 1 July 2021, the provider had not set up a cross-provider monthly deposit limit for the claimant. A corresponding limit was only stored on the player account in mid-June 2022. During the period without the statutory limit, the claimant suffered gambling losses totalling EUR 6,022.67.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What did the court decide?<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The Higher Regional Court of Munich dismissed the sports betting provider’s appeal and thus upheld the decision of the Regional Court Munich I (LG M\u00fcnchen I) in its entirety. In the court’s view, the provider is obliged to repay the lost stakes to the claimant. The legal basis for this is Section 812(1) sentence 1 alt. 1 of the German Civil Code (BGB) (restitution for performance), under which performances made without a valid legal basis can be reclaimed. The gambling contracts concluded between the parties are void under Section 134 BGB because they violate a statutory prohibition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What does this mean in practice?<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Under Section 6c(1) Gl\u00fcStV 2021, players must be asked to set an individual, cross-provider monthly deposit limit as early as registration. This limit may in principle not exceed an amount of EUR 1,000.00 per month. In addition, Section 6c(1) sentence 6 Gl\u00fcStV 2021 expressly provides that participation in gambling is not permitted as long as no such deposit limit has been set up for the player concerned.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The OLG M\u00fcnchen classifies Section 6c(1) Gl\u00fcStV 2021 as a prohibitive law within the meaning of Section 134 BGB. Admittedly, the provision is directly addressed exclusively to the gambling provider and not to the player. According to the case law of the Federal Court of Justice (BGH), however, a statutory prohibition addressed to only one party can also render a contract void if this is necessary to achieve the protective purpose of the provision. This is precisely what the court assumes here. The Interstate Treaty on Gambling pursues in particular the aim of protecting players from excessive financial burdens and from the dangers of gambling addiction. In the Senate’s view, this protection can only be guaranteed effectively if violations also render the gambling contracts invalid under civil law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The protective law character of Section 6c Gl\u00fcStV 2021 was confirmed.<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The decision is also of particular importance for the question of whether Section 6c Gl\u00fcStV 2021 constitutes a so-called protective law within the meaning of Section 823(2) BGB. The OLG M\u00fcnchen expressly affirms this. In the court’s view, the provision serves to protect the individual legal interests of players, in particular their financial well-being and their free and responsible decision-making. Affected players can therefore not only reclaim their losses on the basis of the law of unjust enrichment under Section 812 BGB, but may under certain circumstances also assert claims for damages in tort.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The provider’s arguments were not accepted.<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Among other things, the provider had argued that the so-called LUGAS system, i.e. the cross-provider monitoring and query system for deposit limits, had not yet been fully operational in the relevant period. For this reason, it claimed, the competent supervisory authority could not yet have required full implementation of the limit requirements. The OLG M\u00fcnchen did not follow this line of argument, however. For repayment claims based on unjust enrichment, fault on the part of the provider is irrelevant. The only decisive factor is that the statutory requirements were not met.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The provider’s further objection that the claimant had already been registered as a so-called “existing customer” before the Gl\u00fcStV 2021 entered into force and was therefore not covered by the new rules was also unsuccessful. In the court’s view, the decisive factor is the legal situation applicable at the time the specific stakes were placed. At that time, the Interstate Treaty on Gambling 2021 was already fully in force.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Section 817 sentence 2 BGB does not apply.<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Nor could the provider rely on Section 817 sentence 2 BGB, which under certain conditions excludes a repayment claim if both parties have violated a statutory prohibition. In the court’s opinion, there is no such violation on the part of the claimant. He merely took part in a gambling offering that the provider made available in disregard of the statutory requirements and without setting up the prescribed deposit limit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What does this mean for those affected?<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

For players who suffered losses in online sports betting although no effective monthly deposit limit under Section 6c Gl\u00fcStV 2021 had been set up, the decision of the OLG M\u00fcnchen considerably improves the prospects of success for repayment claims. The key requirements are in particular that the gambling contracts concerned were concluded after 1 July 2021 and that the provider had in fact not set up the statutory limit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

How to proceed:<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
    \n
  • Check whether a monthly deposit limit was set up on your player account and from what date.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • Keep all bank statements, proof of payment as well as transaction and gaming overviews.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • Have possible claims reviewed by a lawyer promptly, as repayment claims are subject to the statutory limitation period.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

    The law firm Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft Cocron GmbH & Co. KG (Munich\/Berlin) focuses on enforcing repayment claims in the field of online gambling law and offers those affected a free initial assessment of their prospects of success.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    The Higher Regional Court of Munich (OLG) has confirmed that online sports betting contracts concluded without the statutory monthly deposit limit are void \u2013 the provider must repay the player’s losses of EUR 6,022.67.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"template":"","news-kategorie":[45],"class_list":["post-5982","news","type-news","status-publish","hentry","news-kategorie-online-gambling"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ra-cocron.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/news\/5982","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ra-cocron.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/news"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ra-cocron.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/news"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ra-cocron.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5982"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"news-kategorie","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ra-cocron.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/news-kategorie?post=5982"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}