The news sent shockwaves through the industry. In its ruling of 15 January 2026 in the Wunner case (C-77/24), the European Court of Justice (ECJ) decided that tort claims against managing directors of online gambling operators can be asserted in the country of residence of the plaintiff player – but that the law of the country in which the damage occurred applies to these claims. This ruling, which concerns only questions of jurisdiction, has been met with horror by gambling operators in general.

And this alarm is understandable: for example, anyone who was the managing director of an online casino licensed in Malta operating in Germany or Austria without a national licence there must now expect players to claim compensation for their losses from them personally – and before the courts of the players’ home country. The question that has been preoccupying the industry ever since is: how serious is this threat in reality?

What Wunner actually decided

The Wunner case concerned a consumer habitually resident in Austria who brought an action before the Austrian courts against the MD of a Maltese gambling company. The company offered online gambling in Austria under a Maltese licence, but not under an Austrian gambling licence. Its MD was based in Malta, not in Austria.

The ECJ clarified that the company law exception in the Rome II Regulation does not cover a non-contractual obligation of the MD arising from a breach of a duty or prohibition imposed on him by law, irrespective of his appointment – such as the prohibition applicable to everyone on offering gambling without a state licence. The Rome II Regulation therefore applies. 

In cases where a consumer claims to have suffered gambling losses because they participated in online gambling from his Member State of habitual residence, which was offered to them by an operator in another Member State without a national licence, the damage within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the Rome II Regulation occurred in the former state – the country from which the bets were placed. 

This means that Austrian tort law applies in Austria – and German tort law applies in Germany. Whether the basis for the claim is fulfilled in this case is another question. Indeed, the question of whether the injured party is entitled to compensation or whether this should be refused must be decided in the light of the applicable national law on tort.

National law decides – and that is crucial

This is the key to assessing the actual risks. The ECJ did not rule on substantive liability, but only determined which law is applicable. The actual question of liability is assessed according to the law of the respective EU Member State.

Since there are no direct contractual legal relationships between managers and players, only tortious claims can be considered. And these are subject to high hurdles in all European legal systems.

An initial response from Germany: Alarm or all-clear?

An initial court ruling in Germany shows how this might look in practice. On 28 January 2026, the Dresden Regional Court (Ref.: 3 O 832/24) ruled and dismissed a player’s lawsuit against the MD of an online casino operator. The decision is detailed and well-reasoned – and thus suitable to serve as a point of reference for other courts.

The position of the MD alone does not establish any obligation on the part of the director towards the company’s contractual partners. For piercing the corporate veil and a claim for damages due to intentional immoral damage pursuant to Section 826 of the German Civil Code (BGB), it is not sufficient that the managing director has breached a duty and caused financial damage to the company’s creditors. Rather, there must also be a particular reprehensibility of his conduct, which may result from the objective pursued, the means employed, the attitude revealed or the consequences that have occurred.

Such particular reprehensibility could not be assumed in the case of the MD of a Maltese-licensed operator in these proceedings. Even if the director had been mistaken in their assumption that contracts for sports betting concluded without a licence required in Germany were valid, this mistake did not allow the conclusion that there had been intentional immoral conduct justifying piercing the corporate veil, justifying piercing the corporate veil. Especially since the Federal Court of Justice and several higher regional courts had also referred questions to the ECJ for a preliminary ruling.

Possible in theory – limited enforceability in practice

In the decision of the Dresden Regional Court, the requirements of the ECJ ruling “Wunner” are applied to Germany. The result: despite the existing jurisdiction of German courts for claims for damages by players against managing directors, substantive liability is denied here on the merits.

In theory, tortious claims against managing directors of online casinos without a national licence are conceivable 
in principle. In practice, however, they are likely to fail due to very high hurdles:

• Contractual claims are ruled out from the outset – managing directors are not contracting parties of the players.
• Tortious claims require particularly reprehensible conduct that goes far beyond a mere breach of duty.
• A managing director who has relied on the legality of an EU licence issued by the authorities and who can claim good faith in view of the unclear situation under EU law over many years is not acting in an immoral manner.

The decisive grounds for the Dresden Regional Court’s ruling may set a precedent, shaping case law in Germany – and beyond – with a broad all-clear in favour of managing directors and providing clarity. It is worth to mention, that the Austrian Wunner case has not yet been finally decided, as the national court ruling – taking Austrian law into account – is still pending. The development remains to be seen. At any rate, the signal from Dresden is clear: the alarm may have been premature.