The European Court of Justice’s ruling in Case C-440/23 has sparked a wide-ranging debate on our portal in recent days. Since the decision on April 16, 2026, there has been intense discussion about the actual consequences of the ruling for players, providers, and German gambling regulation. The central question is how far the claims for reimbursement by players who have suffered losses in unauthorized online gambling extend. Several articles published on ISA-GUIDE make it clear that while the ruling is perceived as an important milestone, its scope is assessed differently. While some authors emphasize above all the strengthened position of players, others point to legal limitations and questions that remain unresolved. This becomes particularly clear when distinguishing between online casino games, secondary lotteries, and sports betting. The question of whether the ruling applies only to the previous legal situation or also to subsequent periods plays a central role in its legal classification. Thus, just a few days after the decision, it is already clear that C-440/23 is far more than just another ECJ ruling on gambling law. Rather, the decision is becoming a point of reference for numerous ongoing and future proceedings. We summarize for you how the most important articles have assessed the ruling in recent days.

In his article, attorney István Cocron stated “ECJ Ruling on Reimbursement of Losses from Online Gambling – Player Rights Massively Strengthened” highlighted above all the immediate significance of the decision for affected consumers. In his view, the ECJ has provided legal clarity and confirmed that lost wagers from prohibited online gambling can, in principle, be reclaimed. Cocron emphasizes in particular that providers cannot successfully hide behind a Malta license or the European freedom to provide services. For many ongoing proceedings in Germany, the ruling is therefore a long-awaited milestone.

The article “ECJ C-440/23 – Losses from Online Gambling Can Be Recovered” by CLLB Rechtsanwälte argues along similar lines. In it, attorney Thomas Sittner emphasizes that, in the ECJ’s view, the former German ban on online gambling was compatible with European law until June 30, 2021, and that providers cannot argue that a ban on online gambling violates the EU’s freedom to provide services. The article concludes that this means the chances of success for players seeking to recover their losses have further increased. At the same time, Sittner notes that recovery may remain possible for later periods as well, provided that providers operated without a German license or failed to comply with regulatory requirements.

Attorney Rolf Karpenstein placed particular emphasis on this in his article “Secondary Lotteries Before the Court of Justice in Luxembourg (C-440/23)”. While he views the decision as an important ruling, he criticizes the fact that the ECJ missed the opportunity to more clearly define the legal status of private secondary lotteries under EU law vis-à-vis the state lottery monopoly. In his view, the Court adopted the interpretation of German courts, according to which secondary lotteries are to be classified as online betting. The fundamental question of whether the exclusion of private secondary lotteries is tenable under EU law against the backdrop of the state monopoly thus remained open, in his opinion.

The most detailed and nuanced analysis was ultimately provided by Dr. Ronald Reichert in his article “[European Court of Justice Ruling on Gamblers’ Lawsuits (C-440/23): Lost the Gamble, Won the Case (FAZ)?] (/isa-law/player-lawsuit-ruling-of-the-european-court-of-justice-c-440-23-gambling-lost-case-won-faz/)”. Reichert warns against hastily interpreting the ruling as a general victory for the gambling industry. He points out that the ECJ only addressed the specific questions referred to it and that sports betting, in particular, is not covered by the decision. Furthermore, he makes it clear that the ruling refers to the previous legal situation and cannot simply be applied to the 2021 State Treaty on Gambling. This classification in particular shows that while C-440/23 sets important guidelines, it by no means answers all the contentious issues in gambling law.

Taken together, the contributions thus paint a multifaceted picture. There is agreement that the ECJ’s ruling has reignited the legal debate surrounding claims for reimbursement from online gambling. Differences, however, emerge in the assessment of its scope. While Cocron and CLLB primarily emphasize the strengthened position of players, Karpenstein and Reichert place greater emphasis on the decision’s vulnerabilities. It is precisely this range of views that makes it clear that the ruling not only has practical consequences for recovery proceedings but also raises new questions for courts, providers, and regulators. For the gambling industry, C-440/23 is therefore likely to remain a central issue for a long time to come.