Tipico calls report of secret court agreement “incorrect”
Tipico, a prominent German betting operator, has formally refuted allegations of a “secret agreement” with federal states concerning player deposit limits. The company confirmed it is conducting an investigation into a specific incident where a player reportedly raised their deposit limit to €10,000 almost instantaneously.
On March 6, a comprehensive investigative report by ARD, Die Zeit, and Investigate Europe suggested that gambling operators have entered into undisclosed arrangements with federal authorities. The findings, which were featured in ARD’s Monitor program, suggested that the state of Hesse had reached a settlement with sports betting providers in 2022 in the context of the Darmstadt Administrative Court.
The purported settlement allows sports betting operators to utilize credit bureau data to evaluate a player’s financial health when they seek to increase their monthly deposit limit beyond €1,000. The credit agency referenced in the report is Schufa, Germany’s private credit bureau.
Tipico, along with several other stakeholders in the German gambling sector, expressed concern over Monitor’s claims. They emphasize that the reported arrangement was not confidential and that any reference to Schufa being used to elevate deposit limits without proper documentation checks is misleading.
Concerns Over Deposit Limit Increases
According to the Monitor report, a student earning merely €1,000 monthly was able to request a €10,000 increase on their deposit limit from Tipico in a matter of seconds. This situation raises crucial questions about compliance with regulatory requirements.
Tipico addressed the Monitor’s coverage in a public statement dated March 10, asserting that the implication of regulatory violations in the report is erroneous. The operator expressed its willingness to scrutinize the incident and urged the publication to provide details for further comment. They remarked that they did not receive any follow-up from Monitor.
Tipico clarified that the agreement in question stems from a judicial settlement publicly announced during a court hearing at the Darmstadt Administrative Court. According to Tipico, the federal states had disclosed the details of this settlement in an interim report on the evaluation of the State Treaty on Gambling, accessible to the public since June 2024.
GGL’s Framework for Deposit Limit Increases
Under the German State Treaty on Gambling (GlüStV 2021), enacted in 2021, players face a capped monthly deposit limit of €1,000 across all operators. This limit can potentially be adjusted on a case-by-case basis, contingent upon the player demonstrating no addiction to gambling and providing verifiable proof of their financial capacity for larger deposits.
As stipulated in its FAQs, the German gambling regulator, GGL, requires players to furnish operators with appropriate documentation that proves their financial capability when seeking an adjustment to their deposit limits. Acceptable forms of evidence include:
- Income tax assessments
- Bank statements
- Other verifiable proofs of income
Self-reported financial disclosures are deemed insufficient by the regulator. However, it is noteworthy that Schufa checks are permitted as a mechanism to evaluate whether a player qualifies for a deposit limit increase, based on their payment history.
The GGL reiterates: “The decision to allow Schufa as a method to assess players’ economic conditions was made when transitioning from an outright ban on online gambling to a regulated framework requiring authorization.” The GGL actively monitors the effectiveness of this method in alignment with recent judicial rulings.
DSWV Decries Report as Unfounded
The German Sports Betting Association (DSWV) has also denounced the claims asserting that federal states are engaged in secret agreements with the gambling sector. In a statement released on March 7, the DSWV characterized the report as a misguided effort to penalize an established agreement between GGL and licensed sports betting operators.
“These allegations lack any basis in reality,” the DSWV stated. “No clandestine arrangement exists. The agreements made between the regulatory authority and sports betting providers were documented in public legal proceedings before the Darmstadt Administrative Court, thus adhering to a lawful process.”
Moreover, the DSWV maintained that utilizing Schufa as a measure for assessing a player’s financial standing is an effective means of protecting against gaming addiction and financial distress.
Case Study: Malta Court Ruling
In a related case study, Monitor highlighted the experience of a player named Sabine, who reportedly lost approximately €180,000 on a Betway site prior to the company obtaining a legal license for the German market. German courts ruled in Sabine’s favor, enabling her to recover her losses; however, the Malta-based operator may not be compelled to comply with these rulings due to its jurisdictional status.
On February 27, a Maltese Civil Court determined it would not enforce Austrian court rulings affirming player claims against Malta-licensed operators, asserting that Austria’s gambling monopoly contradicted Article 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The ruling underscored that TFEU is a cornerstone of EU law impacting both Austria and Malta.
As a result, similar court cases in Germany and Austria have observed judicial support for players challenging operators linked to unauthorized gaming sites, highlighting the complexities and ongoing evolution of regulations within the European gambling landscape.
