Dead, Revived, Regulated?
German case law in 2025 clarifies why influencer marketing for iGaming is no longer per se unlawful – but still high-risk if done wrong: The introduction of the interstate treaty on Gambling (ISTG) in 2021 first brought the freedom of licensed operators to freely advertise their brand and product without requiring additional permission by the supervisory authorities. “Freely advertisings” of course did not allow for any and all advertising but within the regulatory framework of the gambling laws and importantly within the boundaries set in the operator licenses.
Unfortunately for the industry, the German Gambling authority GGL and its predecessor had a very narrow understanding of this freedom to advertise. In the license, they included, inter alia, a complete prohibition of “influencer-marketing”.
This complete crackdown on influencer-marketing was challenged in court, immediately after the first operator licenses were issued in late 2022. Since then, the courts have evolved a rather nuanced case law on influencer advertising for gambling operators. This article shall give an overview of the relevant decisions and what they mean for operators and advertisers.
First decision by administrative court Hamburg in 2022
Against the background of the requirements for advertising permitted gambling pursuant to Section 5 (2) GlüStV 2021, it would appear to be disproportionate to impose a blanket ban on advertising by influencers even if the advertising is “scripted” and controlled by the license holder and is thus attributable to the license holder without restriction.
The prohibition was also found to be unnecessary, as licensees are already prohibited by law from commissioning third parties with autonomous advertising. The law allows operators to commission third parties with implementing advertising measures but not to design the advertising themselves. According to the court “there is no need for a further ancillary provision which would ultimately have the same effect and only allow advertising measures with influencers if they are based on a manuscript controlled by the license holder.”
It has to be noted that the operator involved was a social lottery operator. In many ways, social lotteries are treated differently to sportsbooks or slot operators. However, the statements of the court regarding missing proportionality and responsibility for the advertising ban could be universally applied to other operators.
2023 - Higher Administrative Court Saxony-Anhalt
Backed by this clear case law, slot and poker operators made their case at the competent higher regional court Saxony-Anhalt (who has jurisdiction where the regulator is seated). However, the court did not respond in the desired manner, but decided in favour of the complete influencer ban with a peculiar argument:
The higher administrative court (file no. 3 M 14/23) initially upheld the ban on influencer advertising. Importantly, in principle, they agreed with the statements by the beforementioned administrative court Hamburg: The higher administrative court Saxony-Anhalt stated, that influencer marketing does not violate section 5 (1) sentences 1 and 2 ISTG 2021, insofar as the advertising carried out by the influencer is "scripted" and fully controlled by the licensee, so that it can be attributed to the gambling operator without restriction. The court, however, upheld the influencer advertising ban, because the time restriction pursuant to section 5 (3) sentence 1 ISTG 2021 (i.e. the internet advertising ban between 6 a.m. and 9 p.m. that applies to slot and poker operators in Germany) also applied to it, arguing that it is unrealistic that influencer marketing can actually be practicably realized in compliance with the existing time restrictions.
This decision failed to consider that the watershed times for slot and poker operators are already regulated by law in § 5 (3) ISTG. If the court was not convinced that influencer marketing could be restricted to the allowed times, this would have been a breach of a different statutory provision. This, however, applies fully independently from the influencer regulation.
In a decision dated 19th December 2023 (file no. 3 M 88/23), the higher administrative court acknowledged this argument and went back on its original argument:
“The prohibition of influencer marketing raises serious legal concerns insofar as advertising on the influencer’s own channels, between the hours of 9 p.m. and 6 a.m is affected.”
“The Senate no longer fully maintains that a time limit is impracticable. Time-limited marketing should be practicable on influencers' own channels, so that the ban on influencer marketing between 9 p.m. and 6 a.m. is likely to be unlawful in this respect.”
With this decision, the court declared that the complete ban of influencer marketing is unlawful, but restricted the compliant advertising by influencers to advertising on “their own channels”, i.e. not on public social media platforms. The reasoning behind this limitation was that, according to the court, ensuring compliance with the “embargo time” requires auditable administrative and technical limitations. The court found that since the operator does not have the means to ensure those limitations on external social media platforms, the permissible influencer advertising is restricted to their own channel.
2025 - Higher Administrative Court Saxony-Anhalt
The decision in December 2023 already marked a turning point in the case law of the higher administrative court Saxony-Anhalt. Still, the scope of permitted influencer-marketing was limited due to the reference to the influencer’s “own channels”.
With a decision dated 23. July 2025 (file no. 3 M 56/25), the court also rectified this limitation:
“The Senate considers a ban on influencer marketing, with the sole exception of advertising on influencers' own channels, to be too far-reaching, because it should not be impossible for the respective licensee to ensure that influencer advertising is also “scripted” outside of their own channels and thus remains under their full responsibility. There are no sufficient indications that corresponding requirements for influencer marketing are not being observed. […] Even if advertising on influencers' own channels were exempt, a ban on influencer marketing would therefore also cover advertising that is not considered inadmissible under the standards of the State Treaty on Gaming. Insofar as risks arise from the specific circumstances of influencer marketing, such as the environment and location of product placement, the authority is required to limit any bans to advertising that arises from the specific circumstances in question.”
Main learnings
With this decision, the courts have now established a case law which allows for regulated marketing with influencers.
The main learnings from this case law are:
- Scripted influencer marketing is compliant with the ISTG 2021;
- This requires operators to introduce legal and technical controls of the advertising messages;
- With regard to the scripting, the court expects the gambling authorities to specify which kind of scripting they consider lawful or not;
- The scope of influencer marketing is not limited to the own channels of the influencer but can be extended to external channels;
Response by the Joint Gambling Authority of the Federal States (GGL)
In December 2025, the GGL reacted to the case law that the courts had established. Referring to the decisions by the higher administrative court Saxony-Anhalt, GGL waived their right to enforce the influencer-ban during pending court proceedings. Until now, the authority limits this waiver of enforcement to operators that sued in the jurisdiction of the higher administrative court Saxony-Anhalt. This is not the case for many sportsbook operators that are supervised by the GGL. Since current sportsbook licenses were awarded in 2022, operators did not file court claims in Saxony-Anhalt but in Hesse, where the predecessor of GGL for sportsbooks was located at the time. Such practice might lead to unequal treatment between operators and may distort the market due to the possibly unjustified distinctions in jurisdiction. The license provisions on influencer-marketing are identical in sportsbook and slot/poker operator licenses. The authority will have to present a good reason for treating comparable situations (operators) differently.
Outlook:
2026 will see case law on influencer marketing for iGaming evolve further as we expect final judgements by the higher-administrative court Saxony-Anhalt on that topic. Furthermore, one can assume that once a judgement is handed out, either defeated party will seek final clarification at the Federal Administrative Court. A further key question will be whether GGL provides guidelines on scripting to operators as expected by court until a final decision is made by the Federal Administrative Court on the legality of influencer marketing for gambling products.