One thing is certain so far: No ruling has been issued yet. Nor has a date for the announcement been announced. The leading case proceedings I ZR 216/25 remain pending.
Several observers see positive signs for players
ISA-GUIDE published a detailed report on the proceedings immediately after the hearing at Attorney István Cocron, who had personally attended the proceedings in Karlsruhe.
Cocron, whose law firm represents numerous players in recovery proceedings, assesses the Senate’s remarks on several key issues as favorable to the players. These include, in particular, the possible invalidity of gaming contracts, the classification of gambling regulations as protective laws, and the question of whether claims may still exist under Section 852 of the German Civil Code (BGB) even for older losses.
A similar assessment was published by Attorney Dr. Patrick Redell following the hearing. He, too, sees indications in the Senate’s remarks that claims for repayment are generally possible and that Section 852 of the German Civil Code (BGB) could play an important role in older cases. At the same time, Redell expressly points out that neither judgments nor dates for their announcement have been issued yet, and therefore the written decisions must be awaited.
Attorney Sascha Münch, who, according to his own statements, attended both hearings as an observer, describes the discernible trends as predominantly favorable to the players. In his assessment, while the Senate considers claims under the law of unjust enrichment for older time periods to be partially barred by the statute of limitations, it may see a further avenue for recovery through § 823(2) in conjunction with § 852 of the German Civil Code (BGB).
Matthias Siegmann represents the plaintiff before the Federal Court of Justice (BGH)
A special role is played by Prof. Dr. Matthias Siegmann of Siegmann | Höger. His law firm represents the plaintiff in the landmark case I ZR 216/25 before the Federal Court of Justice.
In this specific case, the player is demanding that Tipico Games reimburse 10,092 euros from online casino games. The losses occurred between December 2020 and September 2022. During this period, Tipico held a Maltese gambling license but initially did not have the required German permit. The Federal Court of Justice has designated this very case as a landmark case due to its fundamental significance.
Thus, this is no longer merely about the claim of a single player. Numerous similar cases before German courts may be influenced by the subsequent decision.
Statute of Limitations Could Become the Decisive Issue
It has become particularly clear following the hearing that the statute of limitations is likely to become one of the most important issues in the entire case.
According to reports from Karlsruhe, the Senate appears to assume that claims for restitution under the law of unjust enrichment may already be barred by the statute of limitations under the normal rules. Knowledge of the factual circumstances could suffice to trigger the statute of limitations—meaning the player might not have needed to additionally know that he was legally entitled to a refund as a result.
This brings § 852 of the German Civil Code (BGB) into focus. Should the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) regard the relevant provisions of the State Treaty on Gambling as protective laws within the meaning of § 823(2) BGB, this provision could still be relevant under certain conditions, even in cases involving older losses.
It is precisely on this point that the assessments of Cocron, Redell, and Münch largely coincide in their general direction. However, the decisive factor is: The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) itself has not yet codified this legal opinion in a ruling.
The Providers Disagree
On the other hand, there is Tipico’s argument.
Attorney Ronald Reichert of the law firm Redeker Sellner Dahs, who represents Tipico in this matter, had already made it clear prior to the hearing that the company assesses the legal situation at that time differently.
According to his account, the previous total ban on online gambling lacked a sufficient basis in European law. Tipico therefore considers its offerings at that time, under a Maltese license, to have been lawful. In addition, the company invokes protection of legitimate expectations, arguing that it complied with the regulatory requirements in effect until the license was subsequently granted.
This brings two fundamentally different assessments into conflict: The players’ side points to the German ban in effect at the time and its protective effect. The providers’ side, on the other hand, focuses on the admissibility of the ban under European law as well as the conduct of the German authorities.
It is precisely these questions that the Federal Court of Justice must definitively answer.
Second Case Concerns Bets Placed from Abroad
On the same day, the Federal Court of Justice also heard the case I ZR 78/25.
This case centers on the question of whether claims for reimbursement require that a player was actually physically present in Germany at the time of each individual wager. In practice, this affects, for example, players who live permanently in Germany but temporarily accessed their existing gaming account from abroad while on vacation or a business trip.
According to reports so far, the panel does not appear to want to rely exclusively on the player’s physical location at the time of each individual bet. Rather, the player’s habitual residence, the fact that the gaming account is based in Germany, and the overall contractual relationship could be decisive. This case is therefore also of practical significance for numerous claims for recovery.
ECJ Proceedings Remain Significant in the Background
The current online casino case should not be confused with the proceedings pending before the C-530/24 Tipico**. The case concerns online sports betting.
In his Opinion of March 19, 2026, the Advocate General of the CJEU takes the position, in principle, that a provider without the required national license may be obligated to refund wagers. However, an exception could be considered if the licensing procedure was contrary to EU law and the authorities had simultaneously assured that they would temporarily refrain from enforcing the licensing requirement. The case remains pending.
Thus, C-530/24 directly addresses the arguments regarding EU law and the principle of legitimate expectations, which the providers also invoke.
Many Indications, but No Decision Yet
Following the hearing, a nuanced picture emerges.
Several attorneys representing the players see in the statements of the First Civil Senate clear indications that claims for repayment could, in principle, be valid and that Section 852 of the German Civil Code (BGB) takes on additional significance in cases involving older losses.
The providers’ side disagrees and points in particular to European law and the principle of protection of legitimate expectations.
Which of these arguments ultimately prevails at the highest court, however, will not be determined by the assessments of the lawyers involved, but only by the ruling of the Federal Court of Justice and its written reasoning.
Until then, the indications from the oral hearing remain important—but only for the time being.