A common question from affected persons is whether you can sue a particular online casino at all. The honest answer comes in two stages. A lawsuit is almost always possible. The truly decisive question is whether a won judgment later leads to an actual payment.
Filing a lawsuit is usually the easy part
Austrian courts affirm their jurisdiction for consumers domiciled in Austria. Against providers without an Austrian licence, a default judgment is often issued quickly in practice, because these providers do not engage with the proceedings at all. The path to a legally binding title is therefore manageable in many cases.
The real bottleneck is enforcement
It only becomes difficult once the judgment exists and the money is to be collected. Here it is decisive where the provider has its registered office and where it holds assets.
For providers with a registered office in the European Union, the European Brussels Ia Regulation generally applies, which facilitates enforcement across borders. In Malta, the registered office of many providers, there is currently a special feature, however. With the so-called Bill 55, Malta is attempting to block the enforcement of foreign judgments against gambling providers licensed there. Whether this is compatible with European law is currently being examined by the CJEU. A decision is still pending, but the Advocate General has already spoken out against Bill 55.
For pure offshore locations outside the EU, the situation is different. Between Austria and island locations such as the British Virgin Islands or comparable jurisdictions, there is no agreement on the mutual recognition of civil judgments. An Austrian judgment would first have to be recognised there in a separate local procedure. This procedure is expensive, lengthy and uncertain in its outcome.
A concrete example is the Casino Rewards group, whose offerings, according to available information, are predominantly operated through Fresh Horizons Ltd, based in the British Virgin Islands. With such groups, the corporate and account structures are also often heavily nested, partly through companies in Cyprus or Asia. Even the attempt to garnish claims against a payment service provider in the EU then usually comes to nothing. A judgment against such a group often cannot be turned into real money.
| Criterion | EU casino (e.g. Malta) | Offshore casino outside the EU |
|---|---|---|
| Domestic jurisdiction | given | given |
| Obtaining the judgment | settled (Austrian Supreme Court (OGH), CJEU) | usually easy (default judgment) |
| Enforcement of the judgment | in principle via Brussels Ia, currently hampered in Malta by Bill 55 | practically barely possible |
When a reclaim works nonetheless
The difficult case is not every foreign provider, but the asset-less provider with no point of access in the EU. In very many cases, the situation is more favourable:
- Large, solvent providers hold assets and have an interest in an orderly market presence. A judgment against them is more likely to be enforceable.
- The payment flows often run through payment service providers based in the EU. This opens up additional starting points for enforcement.
- For providers based in the EU, enforcement is structurally the easiest. In Malta, much currently depends on the still pending decision of the CJEU on Bill 55. More on this in our article Malta and Bill 55.
Why we nonetheless do not take on some cases
We only fund proceedings if, in the end, money can realistically reach the affected person. A judgment that cannot be enforced helps no one and only causes effort and costs. That is why, before every commitment, we examine not only the prospects of success of the lawsuit, but also the prospect of actually enforcing a judgment. For us, this openness is part of serious litigation funding.
How we proceed
The assessment of your case is free of charge. The proceedings against the provider are conducted by cooperating lawyers at our cost, and no upfront payment for lawyers is incurred by you. If successful, R. M. Prozessfinanzierung GmbH retains from 35 percent of the amount awarded, and the remaining amount is paid out to you.
You do not know which category your provider falls into? You do not need to. Describe your case to us, we will classify the provider and tell you honestly whether a reclaim is worthwhile. More on this on the page Online casino and gambling.
Note
This article provides general information to the best of our knowledge and belief. It does not replace an assessment of the individual case. We accept no liability for accuracy and completeness.
Sources
- Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (Brussels Ia, EuGVVO) on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters
- Opinion of the Advocate General of 23 April 2026 on the compatibility of Malta's Bill 55 with Union law · Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) · C-683/24