Recently, there have been reports that Austrian policymakers are debating whether unlicensed gambling operators should be required to undergo a mandatory “cooling-off” period before applying for a local iGaming licence once a liberalised market opens.
The proposal would allegedly bar companies that have breached Austrian gambling laws in the past five years from entering the regulated market, potentially for a period of 24–36 months.
Reportedly, there are disagreements among policymakers over whether this measure should be included.
When the Dutch online gambling market opened, it introduced a similar “cooling-off period” requiring operators to avoid actively targeting Dutch players for at least two years before being eligible for a licence. However, only active targeting counted—passive availability, such as non-.nl sites or non-Dutch language offerings, did not disqualify applicants. The rule faced criticism.
Global Gaming Insider has sought comment from Dr. Christian Rapani and Felix Hohenthanner, legal experts advising companies on matters of Austrian and international business law, including gambling law.
What is the intended purpose of the “cooling-off” period?
On the substance, we understand the underlying concern: a regulated market loses credibility if operators can move straight from unauthorised activity into licensed status.
That is precisely why the draft already requires applicants to settle outstanding Austrian gambling taxes and to satisfy enforceable civil judgments before they qualify. Those conditions are, in themselves, a very high and appropriate barrier to entry.
How would this affect the future structure of the market?
A further exclusion of two to three years on top of settling taxes and court judgments, in our view, runs counter to the reform's central objective.
The point of ending the monopoly is channelisation, that is, moving players from grey-market sites into a supervised Austrian market. The operators currently holding the largest share of Austrian play are exactly the ones a cooling-off period would shut out. If they cannot offer a licensed product for two to three years, their customers will likely not migrate to the licensed providers.
Such a measure would heavily jeopardise the channelisation. It would also discourage operators from applying for a licence, resulting in fewer licensed operators entering the market. As a consequence, the stated objectives of channelisation and player protection would, once again, fail to be achieved.
How likely is it that this period will be retained in the final version of the legislation?
As to how likely this is to be implemented, our impression is that the proposal is supported essentially only by the land-based operators and by the single provider that already holds a licence in Austria.
In other words, it is supported by those who benefit from keeping new entrants out. We therefore view it less as a genuine player-protection measure and more as a last attempt to preserve existing market positions.
Under the current draft, limits on state-regulated slot machines would be changed, with the maximum stake per game reduced from €10 ($11.6) to €2 and the maximum potential win lowered from €10,000 to €2,000
