A German court has just drawn a clear legal line in the online casino sector, classifying a refund request accompanied by public threats as an attempt at extortion. The case was analysed by Michael Schmitt of Malta Media.
The recent decision handed down by the Frankfurt Regional Court does not deal with the legality of offshore casinos, a debate that has already been widely explored by the European courts. It deals with a question that is far more structuring for the sector: at what point does a player’s claim cease to be a legitimate step and become illegal pressure?
As Michael Schmitt of Malta Media explains, the dispute arose after a German player suffered losses at an online casino operated by an entity licensed in Curaçao. The player could have taken legal action against the operator of the site, but instead decided to target a corporate service provider, responsible for management and administrative functions, but totally unrelated to the operation of the casino itself.
Carefully orchestrated pressure tactics
The exchanges examined by the court reveal a progressive and structured strategy. The player made a clear demand for repayment, with an explicit condition: if he paid, he would agree to sign a confidentiality agreement. Failing that, he announced a public escalation.
According to court documents, this escalation included :
- threatening to make the matter public, in particular through repeated publications on LinkedIn and by contacting the media
- referring the matter to various regulatory authorities
- disclose internal documents and the names of people involved in the corporate structure.
The player did not limit himself to a single threatening message; the court was able to reproduce a sequence of emails with constant pressure and precise deadlines. He refers several times to reputational damage if payment is not made.
Choice of target
One of the central aspects of the decision is the identity of the targeted party. The court emphasised that the targeted service provider did not manage the casino, did not offer any games, did not process any payments, and did not decide on the markets or the supply of games. Its role was limited to administrative and management functions for a legally separate entity.
This distinction proved decisive. In the absence of any contractual relationship with the player, the court unambiguously rejected the idea that service providers or directors could be transformed into financial managers simply by structural proximity.
The Frankfurt court’s legal analysis
The judges did not treat this case as a simple dispute between a consumer and a company. They considered that the elements constituting an attempt at extortion were present, due to the existence of a specific financial demand, linked to a promise of silence and backed up by threats of reputational and commercial damage, even though there was no legal right to reimbursement.
The player attempted to justify his demands by citing potential breaches of gambling, anti-money laundering, data protection and consumer law in several European jurisdictions. The court categorically rejected this argument.
It pointed out that losses incurred as a result of voluntary participation in gambling do not constitute recoverable damages and that national regulatory frameworks are primarily aimed at protecting the general interest, not individual restitution.
Michael Schmitt emphasised an important point made by the court: even in the case of proven breaches, players can never legitimise threats or conditional demands for payment.
Clear injunction and far-reaching consequences
After issuing an initial injunction, the Frankfurt court confirmed its position following an adversarial hearing. The player was prohibited from pursuing his lobbying strategy, from making any public accusations and from making any demands for reimbursement related to threats of disclosure. Substantial financial penalties have been imposed, along with the risk of criminal prosecution in the event of a breach.
This judicial firmness leaves little room for interpretation and gives a clear indication of how similar behaviour will be assessed in the future.
The strategic choice of EM Group as a benchmark
Rather than seeking a discreet settlement, EM Group and Trustcore chose to document the facts in detail and take the case to court. This proactive approach resulted in a decision that now benefits the entire sector. According to Malta Media, this strategy demonstrates that a structured legal defence can effectively stop pressure tactics before they become dangerous precedents.
Because this judgement goes far beyond the framework of an individual conflict. It draws a clear legal line between the legitimate defence of players and the abusive use of pressure. Online casinos, managers and service providers now have a clear precedent demonstrating that giving in to aggressive refund campaigns is neither an obligation nor a risk reduction solution.