title: Austria — Enforcement: How hard does the regulator enforce? | advennt.io canonical: https://advennt.io/jurisdictions/austria/enforcement/ [Jurisdictions](https://advennt.io/jurisdictions/) [Austria](https://advennt.io/jurisdictions/austria/) Enforcement Austria · Question 10 of 11 # Enforcement: How hard does the regulator enforce? Mixed · Confirmed · Expert approved · 4 post-review updates · Not reviewed · In expert review scope · [Back to full Austria report →](https://advennt.io/jurisdictions/austria/) Key section parameters | Jurisdiction | Austria (AT) | |---|---| | Regulator | Recorded in register | | Favourability | Mixed | | Confidence | Confirmed | | Review status | Expert approved · 4 post-review updates · Not reviewed · In expert review scope | | Last collected | 18 Oct 2026 | Summary answer ## Regulating bodies Gambling: In this area, the regulating body is Finanzamt Österreich ("Tax Office Austria"), under the direct supervision of the Ministry of Finance (MoF), see explanations below. Betting: The supervisory authorities are the respective offices of the provincial government ("Amt… Not reviewed Information added after the 26 Aug 2026 expert review — published for currency and labelled not reviewed. 11 Oct 2026 Not reviewed The draft GSpG amendment introduces new statutory enforcement powers against unlicensed operators: payment blocking, a public blacklist, and network or website blocking, to be administered through a new digital supervisory platform. These powers are proposed under a not-yet-adopted instrument and are not currently in force; no enforcement action under them was reported. The draft specifies that operators continuing to serve Austrian players without authorisation past 1 January 2027 face an 18-month exclusion from future licensing, rising to 24 months for infractions from 2030 onward. Separately, licence eligibility under the draft is conditioned on settlement of outstanding tax liabilities and player-compensation claims, with the Ministry of Finance estimating roughly 20,000 Austrian consumers hold such claims against currently unlicensed operators — a restitution condition that functions as an additional entry-risk driver for operators with pre-reform Austrian exposure. No enforcement events or licence revocations were reported for Austria; the enforcement picture is entirely prospective, built into the draft instrument rather than evidenced through recorded action. 21 Sep 2026 Not reviewed The reform introduces a transitional mechanism rather than a conventional enforcement action: operators currently providing services illegally must cease that operation by 1 January 2027 to be immediately eligible for a licence under the new regime. Non-compliance triggers an 18-month waiting period before licence eligibility, rising to 24 months for non-compliance occurring from 2030 onward. This mechanism, carrying a MIXED durability rating consistent with the reform's primary-plus-delegated instrument structure, is designed to incentivise early compliance among currently unlicensed operators ahead of the new licensing procedure. No completed enforcement events or licence revocations were evidenced this cycle; the enforcement-relevant signal is entirely the design of this forward-looking transitional eligibility rule. 19 Sep 2026 Not reviewed No new Austria-specific licence-revocation or operator-penalty enforcement action was identified this cycle. What has moved is prospective enforcement architecture: the draft Glücksspielgesetz-Novelle 2026 proposes new tools against unlicensed operators, namely payment blocking, blacklisting and network blocking, tied to a 1 January 2027 cut-off by which currently-unlicensed operators must cease serving Austrian players or face an eighteen-to-twenty-four month exclusion from the future licensing round. This proposed enforcement package is confirmed by a primary BMF press release but remains a fragile instrument pending enactment, not yet in force. The combination of new enforcement tooling and a hard near-term transition deadline signals a materially tougher posture toward the unlicensed market even as the regulated market structurally opens to competition. 4 Sep 2026 Not reviewed The draft Novelle proposes new payment-blocking powers against illegal online-gambling operators together with a central self-exclusion and blocking register, the Sperrregister, both planned to enter force on 1 January 2027; the maximum sanction attached to the payment-blocking power was not quantified in any source reviewed this cycle. Existing administrative enforcement continues under the current Glücksspielgesetz framework in the interim. Separately, Austria joined six other European gambling regulators — France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Portugal and Spain — in a joint statement issued 25 November 2025 targeting illegal online-gambling advertising, a Confirmed, Tier-1-sourced signal of active cross-border enforcement coordination ahead of Austria's own licensing overhaul. Consistent with the civil-law enforcement-theory pattern for this jurisdiction family, unauthorised online gambling is treated as an offence under the gambling statute's own licensing provisions rather than a secondary licence-breach theory, with payment-blocking functioning as the practical enforcement lever layered on top. All proposed instruments here carry FRAGILE durability pending the bill's enactment. ## Full section analysis ## Regulating bodies Gambling: In this area, the regulating body is Finanzamt Österreich ("Tax Office Austria"), under the direct supervision of the Ministry of Finance (MoF), see explanations below. Betting: The supervisory authorities are the respective offices of the provincial government ("Amt der Landesregierung"). Data Protection: Datenschutzbehörde (Data Protection Authority) Telecommunications: Fernmeldebüro (Telecommunications Office) Money Laundering: Bundeskriminalamt/Geldwäschemeldestelle (Federal Criminal Police Office/Money Laundering Reporting Office) or the Austrian Ministry of Finance in its function as supervisory authority over licenced Gambling Operators (CASAG, ÖLG). ## Supervision by Regulator Both Finanzamt Österreich and the offices of the provincial governments monitor the lawful and licenced implementation of the offer. In case of non-compliance, subsequent requirements, fines (in case of unenforceability: imprisonment) as well as the withdrawal of the licence can be issued. However, all penalties fall within the scope of administrative criminal law, meaning that no criminal convictions or mandatory prison sentences can be imposed. The authorities can check at any time on their own initiative whether the general conditions are being complied with. There is neither a fixed rule for annual audits nor other recurring inspections, as such procedure always lies at the discretion of the respective authority. In this context, it should be noted that the Finanzamt Österreich is part of the organisation and supervision of the Austrian Federal Ministry of Finance (MoF). Accordingly, it is subject to instructions and not an independent gambling authority, as is required for EU tender proceedings. Rather, it should be stressed that the Austrian legislator knowingly accepts a multiple role of the MoF: (i) It is the supervisory authority for land-based Casino and Lotteries (including online gambling services); (ii) it is the tax authority for Betting and Gambling (including online services); (iii) it has certain regulatory competences and, last but not least, (iv) it is also a co-owner of the monopolists (holding approx. 33.24% of Casinos Austria AG via Österreichische Beteiligungs AG; and indirectly, via Casinos Austria AG, approx. 24.53% of Österreichische Lotteriengesellschaft mbH). Thus, in the field of gambling, one can by no means speak of an independent gambling authority; rather, the state tries to retain as much control as possible due to its own financial interests. However, according to the current government program, the government plans to resolve this conflict of interests by transferring some responsibilities to a newly established independent authority that is not bound by any instructions. These responsibilities shall particularly encompass the issuance of the gambling licences, whereby especially the conflict of interest regarding the part-ownership of the monopolist shall be reduced. Whether these intended reforms will actually be implemented as well as its actual scope has to be seen. Gambling: Finanzamt Österreich monitors the licensees´ compliance with the provisions of the Austrian Gambling Act, the licence itself and any other decrees of the Federal Minister of Finance. Finanzamt Österreich may also inspect the registers and records of the licensee for that purpose; it may conduct on the spot audits or arrange for such to be conducted by auditors or other specialists and require the licensee to provide information on transactions, submit interim financial statements and accounts in a particular form and structure; the licensee shall comply with such requirements immediately. Bodies and individuals engaged by Finanzamt Österreich to exercise its right of supervision may enter the premises of the licensee and shall provide identification by voluntarily displaying a written audit mandate at the start the official act. The licensee shall bear the cost of monitoring; Finanzamt Österreich shall assess and issue a notice for the annual personnel and operating expenses associated with the monitoring activities and require payment for those from the licensee. To exercise its right of supervision, the Federal Minister of Finance appoints a state commissioner and his deputy. The audited annual financial statements, management reports, consolidated financial statements and group management reports as well as the corresponding audit reports shall be submitted by the licensee within six months of the end of the fiscal year to Finanzamt Österreich. Finanzamt Österreich may issue decisions within the scope of its supervisory powers. Apart from that, it also exercises supervision on the prevention of money laundering and the financing of terrorism. Finanzamt Österreich shall, when exercising its duties and supervisory powers, proceed in accordance with a risk-based approach. It shall Analyse and assess the risks of money laundering and the financing of terrorism existing within Austria With regards to the frequency and intensity of audits, both on site and outside of the licensee's premises, be orientated towards the licensee's risk profile and the risks of money laundering and the financing of terrorism existing within Austria At regular intervals re-assess the licensees' risk profile in regard to money laundering and the financing of terrorism, including the risks of failing to comply with pertinent regulations, and in the event of any significant events or developments occurring in the licensees' management and operations; and Take into account the discretionary powers that the licensees are entitled to assert, and the risk assessments underlying such discretionary powers, as well as the suitability and implementation of the licensees' internal strategies, controls and procedures, in a reasonable manner Betting: Bodies of the district administrative authority as well as experts called in by it shall be entitled to inspect compliance with the relevant law and licensing provisions at any time and without prior notice, For this purpose, they are entitled to enter and inspect business and operating premises of the betting operator; the mere suspicion of gambling activity is sufficient to entitle the authorities to enter these premises; this shall also apply to business and operating premises which are not generally accessible. If there is a justified suspicion of an infringement, the authority’s right of inspection extends to the devices and programs used, including individual components, even if located outside the place of installation. For the purpose of the inspection, the operator shall allow the inspecting body of the district administrative authority, or the experts called in by it, to conduct betting without payment, to open the devices, and to hand over the data carriers (circuit boards, hard disks, etc.) of the programmes. Furthermore, the bodies of the district administrative authority or the experts called in by it shall be entitled to inspect all business documents and to secure evidence. ## Enforcement against licenced operators Gambling: To our knowledge, there have not been any enforcement actions by the authorities against licenced operators to this day, apart from standardised controls by the authorities. There have only been a few civil reclaims of stakes from players who argued that they were addicted to gambling and therefore lacked contractual capacity. Betting: For betting operators, the level of enforcement largely depends on the respective province. Overall, however, it can be observed that licensed betting operators are not subject to any large-scale enforcement action. ## Typical triggers for enforcement against unlicensed operators Gambling: A typical trigger in the area of gambling is primarily the non-payment of the applicable tax. In addition, an offer from a non-EU country is more likely to trigger enforcement actions than an offer from an EU country. Moreover, unlawful gambling machines are particularly often the target of enforcement actions. In the past, advertising measures have also been taken up by the authorities. Although reimbursement claims are not classified as enforcement actions by the authorities, it is noteworthy that for several years players have been able to reclaim their losses from gambling operators lacking a national licence in Austria. While this practice was rather slow in the beginning, many operators now find themselves forced to leave the Austrian market, as player complaints have reached an enormous volume in quantitative terms. For gambling operators, this admittedly creates a degree of uncertainty (while paying taxes in Austria), as they never know, even in the case of new customers, whether the customer will ultimately use the service "free of charge". Consequently, such actions are in some cases no less painful than enforcement measures by the authorities. In recent years, it has become common practice for many operators licenced in Malta not to repay losses even after enforceable judgments have been rendered by Austrian courts. This was followed by lengthy proceedings with execution attempts by customers in Malta to recover their money. The new Maltese law "Bill 55" provided that the corresponding judgments would not be recognised in Malta: Bill 55 has led to the new section 56A of the Malta Gaming Act according to which Maltese courts may refuse the recognition of judgements that are considered to infringe on the Maltese "ordre public". Several proceedings are currently pending at Maltese courts, while (at the time of writing) no decisions by Maltese courts on this matter have been publicised. Following the introduction of Bill 55 in Malta the Austrian Supreme Court reacted and opened a back door for players: The Supreme Court (10 Ob 56/22s) affirmed the applicability of tort jurisdiction in Austria, allowing players to hold managing directors of unlicensed gambling operators personally liable for gambling losses. According to the case law of the Austrian Supreme Court, participation in the offering of illegal games of chance already constitutes grounds for liability (6 Ob 124/16b). Accordingly, managing directors are obliged to obtain knowledge of the Austrian legal situation (5 Ob 95/21p). As result, this means that the managing directors now run the risk of being exposed to tortious liability themselves. This would mean that they themselves would be liable with their own (private) assets. On January 15, 2026, the CJEU upheld this practice in its decision in C-77/24 Wunner. The Court found that under the Rome II Regulation, Austrian substantive law applied and that were was no exception under the exclusion for issues of company law. The end result is that Austrian players can indeed sue to reclaim their losses directly from the officers of unlicensed gambling providers that offered their services in Austria. In another case regarding liability specifically of Maltese operators, on 16 October 2024, the Commercial Court of Vienna referred a request for a preliminary ruling to the CJEU (C-683/24, Sigma), raising several questions as to whether Malta's Bill 55 is compatible with EU law, in particular the Brussels-I-Regulation (regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012). Should the CJEU find Bill 55 incompatible, Austrian judgments on player claims against Maltese gambling providers could be recognized and directly enforced in Malta. At present, it remains unclear how the CJEU will decide. The Austrian Supreme Court has also taken a markedly pro-player stance in expanding the liability of gambling providers to parties who do not themselves directly offer gambling services. In 1 OB 52/24i, operator A, who offered online sports betting (where no reimbursement of losses is available), operated a common website in cooperation with operator B, who offered online casino games (which, unlicensed, are subject to liability for player losses). Following insolvency of operator B, the Supreme Court allowed a player who to reclaim gambling losses from operator A, despite the fact that operator A had only offered sports betting on the same website. The Court reasoned that the two operators had jointly operated a single website where players could deposit money into a single account in order to access the combined offerings of both providers. Theoretically, the triggering element, namely the involvement in unlicensed gambling, could also extend to auxiliary activities by B2B partners. In our opinion and in the opinion of the majority of Austrian legal literature, such extension of liability must be interpreted extremely narrowly, as the Supreme Court explicitly mentioned "directly co-operating in the organisation or offering of games of chance." Reclaiming of winnings paid out to an Austrian player: In its ruling of 26 June 2024 (8 Ob 21/24g), the Supreme Court held that a player who had gambled with a Malta-licensed operator must repay his winnings to the operator due to the nullity of the contracts. In short: a Malta-based operator without an Austrian licence successfully counterclaimed against an Austrian player for the repayment of net winnings already paid out. The operator's argument was based on the existing Austrian Supreme Court jurisprudence, which – as outlined above – states that gambling contracts are null and void, thereby allowing parties (usually the player) to reclaim any losses. The Supreme Court looked at the regulatory purpose of the Austrian Gaming Act: The purpose is not only to protect players but also to minimize "illegal gambling" by ensuring that players cannot engage in risk-free gambling. The court argued that if players could keep their winnings while reclaiming their losses, it would encourage gambling without risk, potentially leading to addiction. Allowing operators to reclaim unlawfully paid winnings discourages participation in unlicensed gambling, as players would no longer benefit from such (risk-free) gambling. The court also determined that allowing such a reclaiming of winnings does not constitute an abuse of rights, even if the operator knew its offering was unlawful. Therefore, the Supreme Court considers the nullity of the gambling contract to be absolute, meaning both parties may rely on it. This landmark ruling confirms that operators without an Austrian license can reclaim paid-out net winnings from players, based on the absolute nullity of gambling contracts. This decision could significantly impact operators dealing with player claims or risks of insolvency in Austria. It is also worth considering to take action, if the Austrian market has already been left. Betting: Here, it is primarily the operation of illegal betting premises that is affected by enforcement measures. Non-payment of applicable taxes also entails enforcement actions. Within the field of sports betting, players have already brought initial lawsuits as well. However, the High Courts have not yet granted any repayment claims based on the illegality of online betting services offered by EU-licensed operators (see also above the section Licensing and Regulation). It is difficult to assess whether lower courts have granted such repayment claims to players, as lower-level decisions are not always published. Nevertheless, to our knowledge no lower court has granted a repayment claim to date. ## Enforcement action taken against unlicensed operators It has already been considered several times to impose IP bans on illegal operators, but this has not been included in the law to date (among other things, due to its non-conformity with EU law). Unlicensed operators are yet subject to administrative criminal law.