KARLSRUHE (dpa-AFX) - Numerous people who made losses on sports bets on the Internet in previous years can hope for a refund. The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has clearly sided with the players in a case that it intends to hear in May. According to the preliminary assessment of the First Civil Senate in Karlsruhe, the provider had violated the provisions of the State Treaty on Gambling in its 2012 version, according to the ruling, which is available to Deutsche Presse-Agentur. According to the ruling, the company had, among other things, not limited the maximum stake per player to 1,000 euros per month.

Contracts between providers and players are likely to be null and void, and the plaintiff is likely to be entitled to repayment. The specific case involves around 12,000 euros plus interest. (Ref. I ZR 88/23).

The decision, which has not yet been published, is not a judgment. Following a preliminary legal assessment, the Senate merely provides the parties with instructions in preparation for the oral hearing. However, in the opinion of attorney Matthias Siegmann, who represents the plaintiff at the BGH, the very careful and detailed order of reference is more or less the intended judgment.

Lower instances are likely to use it as a legal guide, similar to a ruling by the BGH, wrote the lawyer from the lower instances, Thomas Schopf, in an article on anwalt.de. "A reference decision is therefore also a guideline for them."

Schopf assumes that the BGH will trigger a wave of lawsuits. There are already thousands of proceedings of this kind because, on the one hand, several companies had offered sports betting in a legally unclear situation and, on the other, law firms have specialized in such cases. So far, however, courts have ruled differently.

In the specific case, the Dresden Higher Regional Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff. In another case, the Regional Court of Ulm had strengthened the position of the provider. This case, which was originally scheduled for March, had been postponed by the BGH at short notice because both sides wanted to negotiate a settlement (case no. I ZR 90/23).

However, it is still unclear whether there will actually be a hearing and a ruling in the first case. The company can also withdraw its appeal./kre/DP/zb