Alle hatten gehofft, dass die rechtliche Unsicherheit auf dem deutschen Sportwettenmarkt durch das Urteil des Bundesverfassungsgerichts (BVerfG) beendet würde. Sieht man sich die Rechtslage vor und nach der März-Entscheidung des BVerfG zum Sportwettenmonopol an, möchte man fast meinen, dass sich die Situation mit der Entscheidung des höchsten deutschen Gerichts noch weiter verschlechtert hat. Selbst Bundesjustizministerin Brigitte Zypries erklärte nach einem Bericht der Berliner Zeitung Monate nach der Entscheidung des BVerfG, es gebe viele Unsicherheiten hinsichtlich der Legalität privater Buchmacher.

There has seldom been so much confusion in the wake of a decision of the German Federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe. At ten o'clock yesterday morning, shortly after the announcement of the decision, headlines such as "Kick-off for Private Providers" (Manager Magazin), "Sports Betting Monopoly is Unconstitutional" (Sport1.de), and "In Principle, the State Monopoly on Oddset-Sports Bets remains Permissible" (FAZ.net), started appearing, as well as many other newspapers titled "The Sports Betting Monopoly is to be retained for the Moment". The farthest from the truth was probably an announcement, which appeared on the website of an East German radio station: "This Morning the Federal Constitutional Court decided that in the future, Private Betting Shops must also be allowed to provide Sports Bets". However, it wasn't just in the media that confusion reigned; even betting specialists were left with many questions.

So viel Verwirrung herrschte selten nach einem Richterspruch aus Karlsruhe. Heute Vormittag um zehn Uhr morgens, kurz nach der Verkündung hieß es zunächst „Startschuss für private Anbieter“ (Manager Magazin) und „Sportwetten-Monopol verfassungswidrig“ (Sport1.de), dann las man „Das staatliche Monopol auf Oddset-Sportwetten bleibt grundsätzlich zulässig“ (FAZ.net), zahlreiche andere Zeitungen titelten „Sportwettenmonopol bleibt vorerst erhalten“.

As a result of the plenary vote on the 1st reading of the EU Framework Services Directive, which took place in the European Parliament on the 16th of February 2006, gambling is no longer contained in the Directive. It is now more likely that countries will be forced to recognize that current European law already permits cross-border gambling within the EU, ultimately through European Court of Justice rulings and infringement proceedings by the Commission. When it was initiated in January 2004, the scope of the Services Directive did cover gambling but with an ultimate implementation date of 2010.

People active in E-Commerce are as a rule subject to the German Act on Protection of Data in Telecommunication Services (TDDSG), a body of rules targeted specifically to telecommunication services which, among other things, include homepages or mobile services. In certain cases – for instance for the transmission of advertising in the form of a newsletter – the TDDSG only allows the collection of data if the person concerned has given his consent. The question how such a consent in the sense of the TDDSG would have to be designed, has so far been unclear. A decision by the OLG (Higher Regional Court) of Brandenburg has now thrown some light on the subject (Judgement of 11.01.2006, ref. 12 O 287/04). It had to decide on the practise for consent used by the online auction house eBay.

Betting on sporting events in Germany is enjoying ever increasing popularity. According to a study by the Cologne institute "Sport + Markt" around 7 million German citizens are already active gamblers and some 10.4 million take an interest in betting services. Within the market, there is particular potential for mobile betting. Providers of mobile betting and gambling services are themselves betting on gambling enthusiasts’ desire to place bets on their favourites on the way to or at sporting events. But how does that work if you're already en route to the stadium and you want to quickly put some money on your team?

The fact that M-Commerce has a large potential for development has in the meantime become common knowledge (we reported on this subject in BLN 09/2005); Mobile Gaming in particular is attributed with considerable growth opportunities. Looking closer at all the things that are now called "Mobile Gaming", one cannot help but think that the term has become just as dazzling, colourful and contourless as the slogan "Multimedia" was in the 90s.

At the beginning of February 2006, media reports stated that the Regional Court of Cologne (LG Köln) had banned the provision of gaming and sports betting in Germany, among others for the online providers "betandwin", "intertops", "unibet" and "bet365" (see www.isa-casinos.com/articles/11282.html). This statement has temporarily unsettled the media and entertainment sector.
However, it soon became obvious that this statement could not be maintained in this form. On the one hand, for instance, the betandwin decision only applied to the ".com" offers of the Austrian provider of sports bets and not to the sports betting site www.betandwin.de designed for Germany, which, as is well known, is based on a so-called GDR sports betting licence.

Following the German Constitutional Court's (hereinafter, BVerfG) oral hearing on November 8th on the constitutionality of the state sports betting monopoly (we reported on this issue in the 08/05 edition of Betting-Law-News) the BVerfG has announced that it will make its decision before the end of March. As we reported in the 08/05 edition of Betting-Law-News, at the very beginning of this long awaited oral hearing BVerfG Judge Prof Byrde (the senate reporter) stated: "I am sure that bets will also be taken on the outcome of these proceedings."

Wer im E-Commerce tätig ist, unterliegt in der Regel dem Teledienstedatenschutzgesetz (TDDSG), einem Regelwerk, welches speziell auf Teledienste abzielt, wozu unter anderem auch Homepages oder mobile Dienste zählen. In bestimmten Fällen – etwa beim Versand von Werbung in Form eines Newsletters – lässt das TDDSG die Erhebung von Daten nur zu, wenn der Betroffene eingewilligt hat. Wie eine solche Einwilligung im Sinne des TDDSG auszusehen hat, war bislang unklar.

Dass der M-Commerce ein ziemlich großes Entwicklungspotenzial besitzt, hat sich inzwischen herumgesprochen (wir berichteten in BLN 09|2005); gerade dem Mobile Gaming werden erhebliche Wachstumschancen eingeräumt. Sieht man sich einmal näher an, was inzwischen alles „Mobile Gaming“ genannt wird, drängt sich der Eindruck auf, dass der Begriff inzwischen ebenso schillernd, bunt und konturlos ist, wie das Schlagwort „Multimedia“ in den 90er Jahren.

Als Ergebnis der Plenarabstimmung zur ersten Lesung der EU-Rahmenrichtlinie für Dienstleistungen, die am 16. Februar 2006 im Europäischen Parlament stattfand, ist Glücksspiel in der Richtlinie nicht mehr enthalten. Die Wahrscheinlichkeit steigt jetzt, dass Länder gezwungenermaßen anerkennen, dass geltendes europäisches Recht grenzüberschreitendes Glücksspiel innerhalb der EU bereits zulässt, und zwar aufgrund der Entscheidungen des Europäischen Gerichtshofs und der Vertragsverletzungsverfahren durch die Kommission.