"The premise of the lawsuit is whether Tipico should refund wagers placed between 2013 and 2020, when the operator held a Malta-issued license but not a German one. Specifically, it relates to the compatibility of German gambling laws with wider EU regulations, and in particular, the outworking under Article 56 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)."
"After the plaintiff, DK, incurred losses over the seven-year period, Tipico was sued in German courts with the initial case alleging the contracts were invalid due to the absence of a German license. Tipico's retort was that the German regulatory framework was too rigid, restrictive, and incompatible with EU law. This created the ongoing impasse and set in motion a fraught legal uncertainty for the numerous cross-border operators in Europe."
"Germany's State Treaty on Gambling (2012) details that gambling contracts are deemed void if the operator lacks a German license for conducting public gambling activities. The law is designed to protect consumers and users from gambling harm, as well as to act as a bulwark against black market operators. Conversely, another factor is that sports betting licenses were limited to 20 under an effective monopoly, but the licensing process had its flaws."
A legal claim seeks recovery of wagers placed with Tipico between 2013 and 2020 when the operator held a Malta-issued license but lacked a German license. The case questions whether German gambling legislation that deems such contracts void is compatible with EU law, notably Article 56 TFEU on free movement and services. Tipico contends that the German regulatory framework was overly rigid and incompatible with EU principles. Germany's 2012 State Treaty declares contracts void without a German license to protect consumers and prevent black market activity, while limited sports betting licenses and procedural delays created regulatory gaps.
Read at ReadWrite
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]