When it comes to the value that playing at a regulated online casino holds for players, legal support in the case of a dispute is often at the top of the list. However, some players choose to frequent offshore gambling sites, given that, in most cases, they can rely on the illegality of the casino company as leverage in voiding any transactions.

However, one Austrian player was disavowed of this notion in the most surprising way possible.

Player Tries to Game the System

Austria is one of a diminishing number of European countries that has resisted market pressure to forgo its land-based and online casino monopoly in favour of a multi-license regime that accepts offshore gambling companies.

While the country maintains its in-country monopoly, only allowing its citizens to gamble online at Win2Day, they have also decided not to pursue legal action against any locals who choose to gamble online at unlicensed casinos and betting sites.

The government has deemed offshore casinos that target Austrian players to be breaking the law, leading to local players frequenting these sites and then pursuing legal action to return their funds when they suffer losses.

 Austrian Courts Won’t Play Ball

A recent ruling by an Austrian court has unsettled these dodgy players who had thought that by invoking the 2021 Supreme Court ruling, the outcome was guaranteed to be in their favour.

The landmark ruling turned the tables on an Austrian player ordering them to refund the casino rather than the casino being ordered to return the player's deposits. The unnamed online casino did try to push the envelope and requested that the player refund the total value of their winnings, which came to just over €7,000. The court pushed back on this request, ordering the player to reimburse the operator €626.60, the amount of the operator's legal fees.

The reasoning behind this split decision was that while the operator did not have a license to offer games of chance in Austria, the player was well aware and chose to sign up and deposit anyway.

In this case, the court determined that both parties were in the wrong and should take their losses. The only cost item not related to gambling was the cost of the court case, and since the player initiated the case, they were held responsible for the fees.