Tipico Welcomes ECJ’s Review of “Refund Claim” Business Model in Sports Betting

/in , /by
  • Erfurt Regional Court Asks European Court of Justice for Further Clarification
  • It’s clear: Refund claims are a matter of EU law and will be decided by the ECJ
  • Tipico: “We’re confident that, as in the past, the ECJ will rule in our favor.”


Tipico, Germany’s leading sports betting provider, welcomes that Erfurt Regional Court (LG Erfurt) has referred additional questions to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) regarding the admissibility of refund claims in online sports betting (Case No. 8 O 515/24). Following the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) referring the matter to the ECJ in July 2024, now another German court is asking the ECJ to clarify key issues related to the player lawsuits.

Clear Rejection of the “Refund Claim” Business Model

Currently 20 referral questions regarding the matter are awaiting clarification by the ECJ. Despite this, specialised litigation firms and litigation funders continue to lure players into their business model, promising unrealistic chances of success while falsely claiming that the relevant legal questions have already been definitively resolved in their favor.

The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) had already rejected this view in July 2024 with its referral to the ECJ (ECJ: C-530/24). The recent decision by the Erfurt Regional Court to submit six additional clarifying questions to the ECJ once again makes it clear that the ECJ will have the final say on this matter.

The plaintiffs’ side has attempted to prevent further referrals to the ECJ through motions for bias or venue changes in many cases nationwide. However, despite such delay tactics, the referral to the ECJ is proceeding and will contribute to a comprehensive clarification of the legal situation.

ECJ to Answer Six Additional Questions

The initial referral question from the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) primarily concerned the impact of the ECJ ruling from 2016 in the “Ince” case (C-336/14 – Ince). It seeks to clarify whether that ruling also applies to civil proceedings, such as the present case, in order to maintain the consistency of the legal system.

The Erfurt Regional Court goes much further in its inquiry. The questions focus on the compatibility with the applicable substantive law at the time and delve into the legal situation surrounding sports betting in Germany as an EU member state between 2012 and 2019. The need for clarification in this regard had already been indirectly confirmed by the BGH, which had suspended similar cases involving substantive legal violations.

Matthias Folkmann, spokesperson for the Tipico Group, says: “We welcome the approach taken by the Erfurt Regional Court. It is important that, alongside the BGH, lower courts also refer additional questions to the ECJ, so that the legal situation can be fully clarified and legal certainty can be established. We look forward to this clarification from the ECJ with confidence, as we are sure that the ECJ will rule in our favor, as it did in the past. These ongoing referrals remove the basis for a business model which intrumentalises credulous players.”

* The referral decision by the Erfurt Regional Court, along with a legal analysis of the referral questions by Dr. Ronald Reichert, Tipico’s legal representative, can be found here.

** For more information on the ECJ referral by the BGH in July 2024, please refer to our related press release here.