The Austrian Ministry of Finance has completed an initial draft amendment to the Gambling Act that would end the online casino monopoly currently held by state-owned Win2Day.
The draft introduces new player protection rules and proposes a framework that would allow an unlimited number of online casino licences. Meanwhile, operators that previously served Austrian customers without a local licence could be brought into compliance by settling outstanding court judgments and paying unpaid tax liabilities in Austria.
Global Gaming Insider caught up with Dr Christian Rapani and Felix Hohenthanner, legal experts advising companies across Austrian and international business law, including gambling law.
How much legal uncertainty remains around the draft and could you walk us through a potential timeline to implementation?
In general, the draft has not yet entered formal parliamentary procedure and key regulatory parameters, including the structure and operational remit of the new gambling authority, the precise contours of the licensing process and several player protection thresholds are still subject to political negotiation.
On an optimistic timeline, a final parliamentary vote could be expected in the next few months, with the law entering into force by end of 2026 or early 2027. However, given the complexity of the reform and the number of open detail questions, delays beyond that window are possible.
Could the proposed requirement to settle historic court judgments and outstanding tax liabilities affect the attractiveness of an Austrian licence?
This requirement will affect the attractiveness of an Austrian licence for some operators, and that was a foreseeable consequence of the legal environment Austria has created. Austrian courts and public authorities have treated the grey and black market with considerable severity, and operators who participated in that market must now account for that exposure.
That said, many operators are already tax-compliant in Austria and face primarily the litigation side of the equation. For those operators, structured settlement arrangements with player-side law firms are a realistic path, provided planning begins early.
For others, particularly those with larger litigation portfolios or unresolved tax positions, the calculus is a bit harder. Whether to pursue an Austrian licence will ultimately be a commercial decision.
How significant are the proposed player protection measures, and could these affect channelisation?
The player protection provisions in the current draft are strict. The deposit limits proposed mirror those currently applied by the monopoly operator, which creates an immediate tension: the legislator has itself acknowledged that the existing monopoly offer has not been sufficiently attractive to draw players away from unlicenced alternatives.
If the regulated market replicates those same constraints, the channelisation effect will be limited. Mandatory cooling-off periods compound this risk. These provisions will almost certainly be debated further in the political process, but in their current form they might represent a genuine structural obstacle to effective channelisation.
Would Austria become a highly regulated or more lenient market within the European context?
By European standards, the current draft places Austria firmly in the more regulated camp.
The licensing framework provides unlimited licences in principle, which is a liberalising element, but the player protection requirements are stringent, and the conditions imposed on licensees are demanding. The overall regulatory intensity is comparable to markets such as Germany. Austria will not be a lenient market under this framework.
The most underestimated challenge in the process ahead is the novelty of the regulatory environment itself
Do you expect the draft to undergo significant changes before a final parliamentary vote?
The draft broadly reflects the current political consensus, and we do not expect fundamental structural changes. The core architecture, comprising the licensing model, the new authority and the player protection framework, is likely to remain intact.
However, detail-level discussions are not concluded yet. Deposit limits, specific player protection mechanisms, and the procedural rules governing the licensing process are all points where adjustments remain possible and, in some cases, likely. The final text may look different in those particulars.
How do you expect Austria to approach the balance between protection and monitoring without being too restrictive for operators?
This is difficult to assess at this stage, as it depends almost entirely on how the new gambling authority is constituted and how it develops its administrative practice.
Austria is establishing a dedicated regulator from scratch, similar to what Germany did with the GGL, and the early institutional culture of such an authority tends to shape enforcement far more than the text of the law alone.
We currently know very little about who will staff the authority, what its internal priorities will be, and how it will handle the first licensing cycles.
Are there any clear indicators as to the tax structure, and could this shift soon after implementation?
The core tax rate remains unchanged: the gaming levy (Glücksspielabgabe) continues to apply at 45% of annual gross gaming revenue. The most significant development on the tax side is the new bonus regulation of the draft. Bonuses, including free spins, promotional credits and similar incentives, are classified as stakes for tax purposes. There is a permission to deduct actually granted bonuses up to a tax-free allowance of 5% of annual gross gaming revenue in the law.
Notably, refunds of stakes, including those resulting from the civil law's invalidity of gaming contracts, will not reduce the tax base. This provision directly addresses one of the most actively litigated issues in Austrian gambling tax law at present, and its inclusion in the draft signals a deliberate legislative choice to foreclose any argument that operators could offset restitution payments against their tax liability.
Operators with ongoing or anticipated restitution exposure should factor this into their financial planning accordingly. It remains to be seen, however, whether this provision will survive the political process unchanged, as it is likely to attract considerable pushback from the industry during parliamentary deliberations.
What could be the most underestimated challenge in this process?
The most underestimated challenge in the process ahead is the novelty of the regulatory environment itself. The new authority will be building its administrative practice in real time, and the first licensing rounds will set precedents that may be difficult to reverse. Operators and their advisors will need to engage proactively with that process rather than simply submitting applications and waiting.
Having legal representation with genuine, hands-on experience in Austrian gaming law, and in the specific procedural and regulatory context that this reform creates, will not be a formality. It will be a material factor in how smoothly the licensing process and subsequent compliance obligations are managed.
Under the draft law, sports betting would continue to be classified as a game of skill rather than gambling, meaning it would remain outside a unified federal framework and continue to be regulated at the state level
