Anfang Februar 2006 berichtete die Presse, dass das Landgericht Köln unter anderem den Online-Anbietern „betandwin“, „intertops“, „unibet“ und „bet365“ den Vertrieb von Glücksspielen und Sportwetten in Deutschland verboten habe vgl. (www.isa-casinos.de/articels/11282). Diese Meldung hat die Media- und Entertainment-Branche kurzzeitig verunsichert. Schnell kam jedoch ans Tageslicht, dass diese Meldung so nicht stehen gelassen werden konnte.

Anyone who deals with E-Commerce law is confronted with a vast catalogue of requirements, which range from information duties, down to the last detail, to organisational measures and the necessity of obtaining numerous consents from the customer. Most of the time, it is only the threat of fines and the risk of civil law proceedings, which cause firms to implement the extensive obligations. Now the Confidence Working Group, to which the German Association of Digital Commerce belongs, has published a recommendation catalogue, which – as the name of the working group suggests – focuses on confidence-building measures. This is because there is still a major lack of confidence on the part of those who decline to take part in online commerce.

The Baden-Württemberg Administrative Authority suffers another setback – this time at the Upper Administrative Court in Mannheim (case no. 6 S 1947/05). Where sports bets are concerned, it is well known that the administrative authorities take drastic steps – unfortunately without regard to law and order. Private sports betting distributors, who distribute sports bets to organisers in other EU countries have long been a thorn in the side of the state. This is because they are competition to the state sports betting provider ODDSET and in doing so rely on their constitutional rights and European law guarantees, freedom of establishment and freedom of services. However, the administrative authorities are increasingly finding themselves on the losing side.

Not so long ago, business conquered cyberspace. It is just 10 years since the first online-only gambling service went online. Recently M-Commerce (M-Gambling) has been shaping up alongside E-Commerce (eGaming). With the progressive technological development of mobile devices such as PDAs, Handhelds and Smartphones, M-Commerce seems to have been given another chance. After the internet and mobile hype at the beginning of the century died down and other technologies such as WAP or UMTS unmistakably flopped (perhaps unable to emerge from a niche market) it seems to be time to take a closer look at this market.

Vor gar nicht allzu langer Zeit eroberte der Handel den Cyberspace. Vor gerade einmal 10 Jahren gingen auch die ersten reinen Glücksspielangebote online. Seit Neuestem formt sich neben dem E-Commerce bzw. dem E-Gaming der M-Commerce bzw. das M-Gambling aus. Mit fortschreitender technologischer Entwicklung mobiler Geräte wie PDAs, Handhelds oder Smartphones scheint der M-Commerce noch einmal eine zweite Chance zu bekommen.

Baden-Württembergisches Ordnungsamt erleidet erneute Schlappe – dieses Mal vor demVGH Mannheim (Az. 6 S 1947/05). Wenn es um Sportwetten geht, greifen die Ordungsbehörden bekanntlich hart durch – leider ohne Rücksicht auf Recht und Ordnung. Private Sportwettenvermittler, die Sportwetten an Veranstalter aus dem EG-Ausland vermitteln, sind dem Staat schon seit längerem ein Dorn im Auge.

Wer sich mit dem Recht des E-Commerce auseinandersetzt, sieht sich zunächst vor allem einem riesigen Katalog an Anforderungen gegenübergestellt, von bis ins letzte Detail gehenden Informationspflichten über organisatorische Maßnahmen bis hin zur Notwendigkeit, vom Kunden zahlreiche Einwilligungen einholen zu müssen. Meistens sind es nur die drohenden Bußgelder und das Risiko einer Abmahnung, was die Unternehmer dazu bewegt, die umfangreichen Pflichten umzusetzen.

Karlsruhe/Munich 8-10 November 2005. There has hardly ever been an event so eagerly awaited by the national and international gambling industry as the oral hearing in the case (1 BvR 1054/01) before the German Constitutional Court on November 8th. I am sure that bets will also be taken on the outcome of these proceedings" were the words of the Constitutional Court judge Prof. Dr. Bryde as he – acting as court reporter – spoke to the first senate, the parties to the proceedings as well as the audience in the full public gallery of the Constitutional Court.

Karlsruhe/Munich 8-10 November 2005. As is already well-known in the gaming industry, the long awaited seminal decision of the German Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) on the organisation of sports betting by private providers (Case no: 1 BvR 1054/01) is now no longer expected this year (we reported on this in edition 06/05 of Betting-Law-News). On the 13th of July 2005, the Federal Constitutional Court ordered a hearing on the 8th of November (for further information on the background to this case see Hambach "German court delays sports betting decision" World Online Gambling Law Report Vol. 4 Issue 7 ).

"Der Nachklang zur mündlichen Verhandlung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts am 8. November 2005 in Sachen Verfassungsmäßigkeit des staatlichen Sportwettenmonopols. Ich bin mir sicher, dass auch auf den Ausgang dieses Verfahrens gewettet werden wird" waren die Worte des Richters am Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVR) Prof. Dr. Bryde nachdem er - in seiner Funktion als Berichterstatter - den Ersten Senat die Verfahrensbeteiligten sowie die Zuhörer im vollbesetzten Sitzungssaal des Bundesverfassungsgerichts informierte.

As reported in the last edition of Betting-Law-News, a number of complaints have been brought against Germany as well as other member states for infringements of European Law. Under Art. 226 of the EC Treaty the EU Commission is obliged to deal with complaints raised against member states for infringements of the Treaty. The issue of "sports betting / gambling complaints" was raised at a Commission "Infringements Meeting" in early Summer where around 1500 complaints were raised. Due to the number of complaints in other areas, it was decided to discuss this issue at the next quarterly Infringements Meeting.

Besides the gambling provisions, providers of online games must also observe extensive Internet law information requirements. Anyone who is working in the e-commerce area must observe a huge range or regulations on Internet law. For example, in Internet trade, distance sales law can be invoked, which is regulated in the German Civil Code (BGB) and in the BGB-Information Obligation Regulation (BGB-InfoV). The Teleservices Law (Teledienstegesetz) and the data protection provisions such as the Teleservices Data Protection Law (Teledienstedatenschutzgesetz) can also play a role.