Judgment: repayment of the losses
- Copy URLURL kopiert!Copied URL!
- Share on Facebook
- Share on Twitter
In two cases, online casinos were converted to reimburse the plaintiff’s losses. This means that American gambling legislation, which has only been defined uniformly and transparently since July 2021, is richer. In both cases, those affected have been accused of having acted illegally on the American gaming market.
Complaints against online casinos-a profitable business model
The new Gambling State Treaty (GlüstV) legalized the online gambling in USA nationwide on July 1, 2021. Were previously Digital gambling in the Federal Republic prohibited – but not nationwide. Schleswig-Holstein was the only federal state to award official licenses to online operators for a while, who were able to operate only in the northernmost state with the concessions. The state has the new one in April this year Procurement procedure for licenses started.
Land. The then government of Schleswig-Holstein detached itself from the ban on the online gambling market in 2012 and dared to go alone. The digital gaming market was legalized as part of a license procedure. Many providers received a corresponding license and were able to offer their offer in the federal state. However, what attracted players from all over the country was advertised nationwide.
The situation before the new GlüstV was pretty opaque, but did not stop many players in USA from both in Online casinos without American license As well as playing with providers who were licensed in Schleswig-Holstein-regardless of the place of residence. It was legally legally an illegal action.
Many law firms and process financiers use this today as the basis for a fairly profitable business model. They offer players who suffered major losses in illegal online casinos before July 1, 2021 to make lost money in court.
As a rule, only cases are assumed in which the plaintiffs themselves are not about legislation and thus Not known about the illegality of the corresponding online casino to have. Many complaints do not always go out in favor of the clients, but in some cases the gaming operators have to reimburse the losses – including the two latest judgments.
Reimbursement of 211,330 $
On April 11, the Berlin district court decided that the “ElectraWorks” gambling group had to pay around 211,330 $ back to a player via its “Bwin” brand. This had lost the gigantic sum in the casino division of the gaming company for years. Now the judgment became final. The plaintiff’s law firm entrusted titled the judge as “clear consumer victory”.
“ElectraWorks” has one Gibraltar happiness And also has its headquarters in the British overseas area. From the perspective of the plaintiff’s law firm, the provider has with his “bwin” brand Illegal on the American market acted since the online gambling in the Federal Republic was prohibited without exception before July 1, 2021.
Pickground argument. The judges regarded the reasoning of the law firm as extremely incomplete, since “Bwin” has had an online gap license from Schleswig-Holstein since 2012. According to the landing page of the provider, it is pointed out that the range of games is determined for people from the federal state.
The fact that he could convey credibly conveyed it, in favor of the plaintiff, not in the picture of the legislation of the time have been. So he did not know that the “Bwin” gambling offer only for People with an ordinary residence in Schleswig-Holstein is applicable. In addition, the plaintiff indicated that he was addicted to play and therefore not fully business capable.
Victory in the second instance
A similar judgment was made by the Frankfurt Higher Regional Court, which in the second instance of a lawsuit against an online casino. Already in the first instance, the corresponding Gibraltar company was asked to have a “cheated” player to repay almost 12,000 $ . The group then went into a revision, which, however, did not bring any amendment to the judgment.
The complaining player argued in court that he was not aware of the illegality of the online casino. In both instances, the judges followed this reasoning and agreed with the plaintiff. In its judgment, the Higher Regional Court said that the non -transparent and opaque gambling legislation is responsible for the General ignorance of law and wrong be. According to the judges, the judge at that time could not be derived from Schleswig-Holstein due to the advertising for online gambling.
Contradictions. In the course of the negotiations, the defendant gambling company weakened its own position through a contradictory argument. The operator explained that it was expressly and clearly viewed in which regions the gambling offer applies. In the same breath, the group tried to explain to the court that its own online casino in USA was not illegal due to the freedom of competition and service of the European Union. However, the judges donated no hearing to the operator.