Gambling law in Austria is a decidedly mixed system, in some cases under complete federal control and in others governed by individual provinces. Similarly, depending on the service offered, the mar-ket can be entirely closed and subject to federal monopoly or completely free of licensing require-ments. In general, however, gambling is viewed favourably in Austria. While the potential harmful consequences of gambling are recognised, authorities operate on the assumption that there exists a basic desire for games of chance which must be channelled into a properly regulated market. As a re-sult, gambling services are freely available to those of legal age, and advertising gambling services is permitted. This has been the case since Empress Maria Theresia instituted the national lottery in 1752, and the federal gambling monopoly, now licenced by the Ministry of Finance, continues to this day.
Perhaps the most important distinguishing feature of the Austrian gambling framework is the histori-cal demarcation drawn between betting and gambling and the drastically different consequences that –ow from each - whereas gambling is controlled by a federal monopoly, betting is regulated by the provinces, or Länder. Gambling and games of chance are de/ned as any game, the outcome of which is entirely or predominantly based on luck, whereas a bet is de/ned as the agreed upon per-formance based on a prediction about an event the outcome of which is unknown. Any theoretical difficulties in sorting out these two categories are usually overcome by reference to historical differ-ences. Traditional casino games, including games with skill elements such as poker, are treated the same as games of pure chance, and any wagers on the outcome of real-world events, even where the benefits of superior knowledge or skill are implausible at best, are generally treated as a bet. This means that products such as fantasy leagues, pool betting, spread betting, over/under, and combi-nation bets are treated as bets and are not subject to the restrictive federal monopoly. While betting on the outcomes of non-sport-related events such as elections is recognised under Austrian law and not universally prohibited, Austrian courts have held that bets on purely chance-based or algorithmi-cally decided outcomes, such as secondary lotteries or simulated horse races (or pre-recorded grey-hound races that took place in the past), must be treated as gambling.
Other risk-based contracts such as speculative financial products or insurance contracts fall under neither of these regimes, and they are distinguished by their connection to an independent economic purpose, for example hedging risk.
Gambling, as opposed to betting, is carried out exclusively through concessionaires of the federal monopoly, which operate traditional and online lotteries as well as brick-and-mortar casinos. The of-fering and advertising of gambling services outside this monopoly is prohibited, including by foreign licenced providers offering services purely over the internet, although there are exceptions provided for foreign brick-and-mortar casinos, which may advertise their services based on a pre-approval scheme. Illegal gambling is subject both to administrative fines and absolute nullity of contracts, meaning players can sue to reclaim lost stakes, targeting either the provider itself or its managing di-rectors personally. Despite this, illegal gambling contracts are subject to the same taxation as legal contracts.
Betting, on the other hand, operates on a more liberal model. Each of the nine provinces regulates betting independently, but all require that providers maintain a licence. Notably, none of the prov-inces regulates purely online betting absent physical presence within its territory. This means that, in reverse of the situation with gambling, foreign online betting is essentially unregulated in Austria.
The Austrian constitution designates the regulation of gambling as a competence of the federal gov-ernment, which maintains a monopoly on the provision of legal gambling in Austria. Betting, on the other hand, is regulated by the nine provinces and follows a more liberal, market-based approach. Consequently, the Austrian gambling market (provision of lotteries, slot machines, poker, and other casino games, whether online or off) is essentially closed, while the betting market is open to both physical betting parlours and especially to purely online offerings. Gambling is currently supervised by the Federal Ministry of Finance, while supervision of betting lies with the relevant provincial gov-ernment. Purely online betting services (lacking any physical nexus) are currently not regulated in Austria. Gambling in Austria is regulated by the Austrian Gambling Act (Glücksspielgesetz, or GSpG). Section 1(1) GSpG defines games of chance (synonymous with gambling) as games in which the out-come is entirely or predominantly based on luck. Games of chance are also defined in section 1272 of the Austrian Civil Code (Allgemeines bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, or ABGB), which rather unhelpfully adds that every game of chance is a form of bet. In practice, courts refer exclusively to the definition in the GSpG. However, the concept of a contract of chance (Glücksvertrag) defined in section 1267 ABGB also provides substance to the GSpG's definition, and courts have relied on the ABGB to clarify that gambling also requires a bilateral contract with an uncertain economic outcome. Section 1(2) GSpG designates specific games and their variations as ex lege games of chance, namely roulette, op-tical roulette, poker, blackjack, two aces, bingo, keno, baccarat, and baccarat chemin de fer. Addi-tionally, the GSpG introduces the term Ausspielung, which is often translated to lottery or draw but essentially means commercial gambling organised by an entrepreneur.
The distinction between which games are predominantly chance-based and which are predominantly skill-based might theoretically pose difficulties, but in practice, historical distinctions tend to decide. Even where litigants have put forth credible arguments that certain bets or combinations of bets cannot meaningfully be influenced by the bettor's skill or knowledge, courts have upheld the general rule that wagering on the outcome of a real-world event is a bet and thus does not fall under the federal gambling monopoly. One exception is Toto, where players must correctly bet on the outcome of several sporting events in order to win a prize. Toto is defined in Section 7 GSpG as a specific form of lottery and thus falls under the federal gambling monopoly. In contrast, outside the specific con-text of Toto, Austrian courts have held that similar combination bets are generally to be treated as bets, not games of chance. Betting on past races, which are then selected at random, has been found to constitute gambling, as the players' knowledge and skill is not decisive in determining the outcome of the bet. Similarly, secondary lotteries, that is, bets on the outcome of a lottery, are also considered gambling, not betting.
The GSpG enumerates the specific kinds of lotteries that may be conducted under the federal mo-nopoly, and it groups them, along with online games of chance, into a single licence that may be ten-dered for a maximum period of 15 years. This licence includes the right to operate, among others, in-stant lotteries, scratch-off games, and video lottery terminals. Premises wherein video lottery termi-nals are installed may contain 14 to 54 machines and cannot contain other kinds of gambling ma-chines. Individual locations must also receive a permit before installation. The GSpG also provides for the possibility of 15 licences for physical casinos to be tendered, again for a maximum period of 15 years. Any commercial gambling not conducted under the auspices of these licences is prohibited and subject to administrative fines up to €60,000. Additionally, participation in prohibited games of chance as a player is also subject to an administrative fine, €1,500 for negligent participation and €7,500 for wilful participation.
Whereas gambling is regulated federally by the Gambling Act, betting is regulated by a separate stat-ute for each of the nine provinces. Critically, in provinces that regulate online betting, each statue re-quires territorial presence by a betting provider before regulations apply. For provinces that do not explicitly regulate online betting, the Supreme Civil Court has ruled that regulations do not apply mu-tatis mutandis. The result is that betting offered purely online by providers with no physical pres-ence in a province is not subject to local betting laws. Betting offered within the territory of a prov-ince, either in a betting parlour or online by way of a local server, requires a licence in the specific province or provinces in which it is offered, although the provincial licensing systems are not monop-olised.
While the GSpG requires that the Federal Ministry of Finance and its agents have access to inspect gambling machines and their software, it does not specify a particular manufacturer or licence the manufacturer of gambling equipment. Likewise, there are no licences required for the manufacture of betting terminals or other equipment in provincial regulations. The use of Bitcoin and other cryp-tocurrencies for payment is not specifically regulated, although some authors have proposed that crypto mining itself may fall under the GSpG. The Supreme Civil Court has considered this view but not decided on it.
As mentioned above, gambling and betting in Austria fall under the competence of the federal gov-ernment and provincial governments, respectively. Accordingly, the licensing procedures for gam-bling providers and for betting providers are different, and the requirements for a betting licence, while often similar, differ depending on the province in which the betting provider is located. The Austrian federal government maintains a monopoly on most forms of gambling. The right to conduct certain forms of commercial gambling is then licenced to concessionaires via procedures regulated by the GSpG. A total of 16 licences may be granted under the GSpG, one for the organisation of specifi-cally enumerated lotteries, which includes video lottery terminals and online gambling, and 15 for brick-and-mortar casinos. To date, only 12 of the 15 possible casino licences have been tendered.
Concessions must be granted in writing to be effective, specifying the duration (maximum of 15 years), the security provided (minimum of 14% of the concessionaire's share capital, as well conces-sion-specific details such as the maximum number of video lottery terminals for the lottery licence and the specific games of chance that may be operated within a casino. Casinos may offer remote gaming, but participation is limited to within the casino premises.
Section 14 GSpG regulates the tendering of the single lottery, online casino, and VLT concession, and Section 21 GSpG regulates the tendering of the (up to) 15 brick-and-mortar casino concessions. The lottery licence is currently held by Österreichsiche Lotterien GmbH, while 12 casinos licences have been awarded, all to Casinos Austria AG, which also owns a 68% stake in Österreichische Lotterien. The lottery licence is due to be retendered in 2027, along with six of the casino licences. The remain-ing six licences are due to be retendered in 2030.
To apply for a concession, applicants must be based in the EU or the EEA, and concessions are grant-ed on the condition that the company establishes its seat in Austria. This condition may be waived if the applicant holds a comparable lottery concession in its country of domicile and is subject to com-parable state supervision. If it can be demonstrated that the supervisory authority in the applicant's domicile will transmit information to the Austrian supervisory authority as necessary and conduct on-site control measures on its behalf, then a mere branch in Austria is sufficient. In this case, the Austrian tax office must be immediately noticed of resolutions of the foreign corporation's governing bodies insofar as they affect the management of the Austrian branch, and separate accounting and management must be maintained for all Austrian operations.
The tendering of licences is conducted through an open call for bids. All applications submitted on time must be decided on by official notice (as opposed to a private law agreement). Sections 14(1) and 21(1) GSpG stipulate that a concession may only granted to an applicant that:
Whereas (1) through (6) function as minimum requirements to be fulfilled, (7) serves as a collection of criteria by which to judge competing applicants. In other words, when multiple applicants fulfil the first six criteria, a concession will be granted based on the applicants' expected operational ability as well as their player protection and anti-addiction concepts, among other things.
Section 31b GSpG also imposes additional requirements on the holders of both the lottery licence and casino licences. Particularly relevant are the requirements that at least one managing director of a licence-holder speak German and that one have the centre of their interests in Austria. A licence holder must additionally have at least two directors and forbid individual representation in its by-laws. Any changes to the managing directors of a licence holder must be reported to the Austrian Tax Office within two weeks.
To ensure that the impulse to gamble has regulated channels available, the holder of the lottery con-cession is obligated to operate the relevant games without interruption. For this same reason, it may be required to operate games for up to a year to ensure a smooth transition in the event it relin-quishes its concession or the concession expires. If the concession is revoked rather than voluntarily relinquished (for example for failing to uphold the conditions of the licence), this obligation may ex-tend up to 18 months. Holders of a licence as well as their officers, employees, and contractual part-ners are also obligated to maintain player confidentiality, including the fact of participation in games of chance as well as any wins or losses. Numerous exceptions to this rule apply. For example, player confidentiality may be broken in probate, guardianship, tax and financial criminal courts.
Finally, concessionaires are required to follow anti-money laundering, terrorist financing and circum-vention of targeted sanctions regulations in the Austrian Financial Market Money Laundering Act (Gesamte Rechtsvorschrift für Finanzmarkt-Geldwäschegesetz, FM-GwG). In particular, this requires due diligence measures such as verifying the identity of business partners and customers as well as obligations to investigate suspicious transactions. The Federal Ministry of Finance is also obligated to assist licence holders by providing them with up-to-date information on current methods of money laundering, terrorist financing and targeted sanctions circumvention.
Violations of the specific terms of a licence are punishable by an administrative fine of up to €22,000 or, in certain cases, revocation of the licence. Additionally, a lapse in the minimum conditions for re-ceipt of a licence may also result in revocation of the licence, though the licence holder is given time to remedy such a lapse.
Betting, in contrast to gambling, is regulated by the nine Austrian provinces. Each province has its own statute governing betting activity carried out within its borders, and while each differs slightly in structure and terminology, a relatively consistent regulatory model emerges when the statutes are compared. Below is a short, generalised summary of the licensing requirements and procedure in the Austrian provinces.
First, each province maintains a licensing requirement for physically present betting providers, either as bookmaker or intermediary. Betting offered purely online, with no physical infrastructure within the territory (including a betting parlour but also a mere server), is currently not regulated in any of the provinces. Physical betting parlours must comply with local zoning laws, distance rules (for ex-ample, maintaining a certain distance from schools), and technical player protection standards such as age-restricted entry control and self-exclusion options.
Betting providers generally must have either Austrian citizenship or else citizenship in the EU, EEA, or Switzerland. They must also be legally competent and "reliable". Unreliability is usually evidenced by legal violations carrying a certain minimum penalty, convictions for financial crimes, or legal violations directly related to the betting law. Additionally, applicants must furnish proof of credit and in some provinces professional qualifications such as a business degree, experience in the betting industry, or other credentials. Legal entities must generally have their seat or centre of activities in the EU or the EEA and must have officers meeting experience and reliability requirements.
Finally, betting providers must demonstrate compliance with anti-money laundering and terrorist fi-nancing provisions, which place certain due diligence and reporting obligations for suspicious transactions.
In contrast to the federal gambling concessions, provincial betting licences are not limited to an arbi-trary number of licences or providers.
The GSpG prohibits all games of chance that are conducted without a concession and which do not fall under an exception to the federal monopoly. Exceptions are narrow and include non-commercial gambling for amusement, one-off lotteries carried out for the alienation of tangible assets, carnival games, raffles and card tournaments. In these exceptions, stakes are generally limited to small amounts.
For games of chance falling under the federal gambling regime, the Austrian Tax Office (Finanzamt Österreich, which sits under the Federal Ministry of Finance, Bundesfinanzministerium) monitors li-cencees' compliance with the Austrian Gambling Act, the terms of the licence itself, and any other rel-evant provisions. The Tax Office is permitted to conduct in-person audits or to arrange for such to be conducted by third-party specialists. It may also inspect the concessionaire's books and records as well as request interim financial statements or any information regarding businesses transactions.
Section 168 of the Austrian Criminal Code makes the organisation of games of chance for the pur-pose of monetary gain (outside the purview of the Federal monopoly) a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment for six months or a fine of up to 360 Tagessätze (a Tagessatz or "daily rate" is ad-justed to the financial circumstances of the accused but must be between €4,000 and €5,000). However, pursuant to section 52(3) GSpG, an act that constitutes an offence under both provisions is to be punished only according to the GSpG.
The organisation, arranging, or making available of commercial gambling from within Austria subject to administrative fine of up to €60,000 under the GSpG, largely replacing the penalties under the commercial code, at least for commercial providers. Other offences subject to a smaller fine, up to €22,000, include the commercial transferring of lottery tickets or similar shares in a game of chance, failure to comply with conditions of a gambling licence, failure to provide adequate descriptions of li-censed games and their rules, promotion or advertising of illegal games of chance (for example by posting internet links), and possession or use of technical devices for cheating.
To combat illegal gambling, the municipal police are empowered to enter private premises, seize gambling machines and potentially close businesses where illegal games of chance are operated. These powers are also generally granted with regard to betting operations under the provincial bet-ting laws.
For online gambling based outside of Austria, fineable offences are deemed to have taken place from within Austria when participation takes place within the country. That means that foreign providers offering services purely online may still be subject to administrative penalties if players participate from within Austria. The GSpG also contemplates administrative fines for players who pay their stakes from Austria, up to €7,500 for knowing violations and €1,500 for negligent violations.
Finally, contracts for gambling that are not concluded under the auspices of the federal monopoly are void. As a consequence, players may sue to reclaim their losses. It is also worth noting, however, that the reverse is also true, and providers are entitled to rely on the nullity of the contract to reclaim players' net winnings. The Austrian Supreme Civil Court has also held, and the Court of Justice of the European Union confirmed, that the managing directors of a gambling provider may also be person-ally held liable in tort for gambling losses, opening another pathway for gamblers based in Austria to reclaim losses from unlicensed gambling operators.
The central basis for tax liability in gambling is found in sections 57 et seq of the GSpG. All commercial gambling contracts are covered provided participation takes places from within Austria. Although online activities may pose a challenge in determining from where participation takes place, providers are expected to infer from available information, for example use of site with an Austrian domain, IP address, and player self-identification, to infer whether gambling takes place from Austria. All par-ties that participate in the organisation of games of chance are jointly and severally liable for the payment gambling taxes. Betting activities are not subject to the provisions of the GSpG but are cov-ered by the Federal Fees and Duties Act (Gebührengesetz or GebG).
The GSpG distinguishes between various enumerated forms of gambling permitted to concession-aires, with tax liability and tax base dependent on the type of gambling conducted. The basic rule is that games in which participation takes place from within Austria are subject to a gambling tax of 17.5% of the stake. In the case of tournament-style games, the stake is not used as the tax base; in-stead, the monetary prizes offered in the tournament are used. For online gambling, the tax base is gross gaming revenue (or GGR, ie, total stakes minus paid out winnings within a calendar year). With effect from 1 July 2025, the taxation for online gambling (electronic lotteries) in Austria has been in-creased from 40% to 45%. For video lottery terminals and slot machines, the tax base is calculated by subtracting applicable sales tax from gross gaming revenue. Specific tax rates then range from 5% to 45%, depending on the specific form of gambling. Betting, either in-person or online, is subject to a 5% tax on the stake, up from 2% as of 1 April 2025.
Depending on the type of gambling, tax liability arises either at the time the gaming contract is con-cluded, at the end of the calendar year in which the game is published, or at the time a specific act triggering liability is performed. Taxpayers are then obligated to calculate their own liabilities and pay them to the Austrian Tax Office by the 20th of the calendar month following accrual of liability. Whether the game is licensed or unlicensed and therefore legal or illegal, is irrelevant for tax purpos-es. It should be noted, however, that any claims for reimbursement of players losses based on un-authorised and invalid gambling contracts reduce the tax base for the gambling tax; however, the tax base can never be less than zero.
Gambling advertising is regulated by section 56 GSpG, which imposes a "responsible standard" on holders of gambling licences. Casino operators within the E" or the EEA may also advertise in Austria under this standard with prior approval from the Austrian Tax Office. These advertisements are only permitted to invite players to visit these casinos and not, for example, to promote online offerings, in which participation from Austria is prohibited.
Section 56 also empowers Austria's Minister of Finance to flesh out the responsible standard through further regulation, but to date, this power has not been exercised. Instead, in 2010, the Ministry of Finance released a report containing non-binding recommendations for the content and placement of gambling advertisements, for example:
• Gambling advertisements should not contain content aimed at increasing the frequency of play or raising of stakes. • Gambling advertisements should not focus their message on the "joy of playing", "feelings of happiness" or the "thrill" resulting from excessive or risky gambling. • Gambling advertisements should not portray non-participation in gambling in a negative light. • Gambling advertisements should not suggest that participating in gambling promotes indi-vidual, social, or sexual success or serves as a solution to personal or private problems. • Gambling advertisements should not suggest that participation in gambling constitutes a de-sirable and meaningful form of financial investment or a means of settling outstanding bills. • Gambling advertisements on television and radio should not be broadcast in close proximity to programs for children and adolescents and should not be placed in media specifically tar-geted at young people.
Provincial betting laws do not generally regulate advertising, although the Vienna Betting Act also contains a responsible standard for betting advertisements.
As mentioned above, advertising unlicensed games of chance (except in the case of pre-approved brick-and-mortar casinos outside of Austria), is not permitted and subject to an administrative fine of up to EUR 22,000.
The past year has held little in the way of fundamental changes in the Austrian gambling and betting landscape, although new developments are on the horizon. Instead, recent developments have mostly confirmed the status quo. At the Court of Justice of the European Union, the trend has been to uphold Austrian courts' decisions in favour of players, particularly in loss-reclamation suits. A years-long series of cases revolving around digital "lootboxes" connected to the video game series FIFA was also decided by the Supreme Civil Court in favour of the games' designer and publisher.
A preliminary reference from the Austrian Supreme Civil Court in the Wunner case was decided on by the CJEU in January 20206 confirming the possibility of holding the managing directors of an unli-censed gambling provider directly liable in tort for gambling losses. The provider in question was based in Malta and operating without an Austrian licence. The CJEU found that company law excep-tions in the EU Rome II Regulation did not apply in this case, and that the applicable law, decided by the place where the harm occurred, must in the case of online gambling contracts be located where the player has their habitual residence, Austria. As a result, Austrian players can now hold managing directors personally liable for gambling losses resulting from unlicensed games.
The opinion of the Advocate General (AG) in another preliminary reference case, Mr Green, was also published. The Vienna Regional Court for Civil Matters asked the CJEU for guidance on when a Euro-pean order for provisional account seizure is appropriate. The AG's opinion left open the possibility that barriers such as Malta's Bill 55, which has shielded Maltese gambling providers from Austrian loss-reclamation judgments, as well as account movements more than three years old, could be con-sidered in assessing whether there is a real risk that enforcement might impeded without account at-tachment. While AG opinions are non-binding, the CJEU tends to follow their reasoning, and a judg-ment from the court along the same lines could open up Maltese providers in particular to an in-creased risk of account attachment following successful loss-reclamation suits.
The Austrian Supreme Civil Court also issued a decision finding that lootboxes in the FIFA football simulation games did not constitute illegal gambling. Lower courts had reached contradictory conclu-sions on the matter. Lootboxes are digital mystery boxes that contain virtual goods usable within the video games to which they are connected. They are often purchasable separately, allowing players additional chances to win especially rare content. The Supreme Court found that, at least in this spe-cific case, lootboxes could not be considered separately from the rest of the game, particularly be-cause contractual and technical barriers made it difficult (but not impossible) to sell lootbox contents on the secondary market. Finding that overall, the FIFA games were games of skill, not chance, the court then concluded there was no illegal gambling. Consequently, players cannot reclaim money spent on the lootboxes in the same way they can reclaim gambling losses from unlicensed providers. While the court's judgment is limited to the FIFA series of games, it provides a blueprint for video game designers that wish to implement lootboxes for additional monetisation and player retention.
Finally, a leaked update to the Austrian Gambling Act in December 2025 suggested that Austria's gambling monopoly might (so far) remain mostly unchanged. Potential changes will be discussed fur-ther in the Outlook and Conclusions section.
Austria's legal framework for betting and gambling could soon be subject to major shifts, although at this point in time, little is certain.
A leaked early draft of an update to the Gambling Act suggested that the governing coalition would mostly maintain the status quo, but the latest reports are that the coalition has reached an agree-ment on the introduction of additional licences for online gambling. It remains unclear whether these licences will be limited in number or whether an open licensing scheme will be adopted. Addi-tionally, existing licences, including the single lottery/online gambling licence and six brick-and-mortar casino licences, will expire in 2027, presenting a chance for new operators to enter the Austrian mar-ket. The remaining six casino licences are due to expire in 2030.
The current coalition has also introduced plans to curb the illegal online gambling market through the introduction of payment blocking and IP blocking. Rather than completely open the market as some providers had hoped, it seems that Austrian authorities' first step will be to try to cut off access to online providers.
An independent Austrian supervisory authority is also in the works. Currently, monopoly rights and supervisory duties both belong to the Ministry of Finance, and this dual role has long provoked criti-cism about potential conflicts of interest.
On the part of the provinces, there has also been discussion about closing the "loophole" for online betting. None of the nine provincial betting regulations covers purely online betting offered without a territorial presence. As a result, online betting is mostly unregulated in Austria. On the one hand, provincial authorities have discussed revising their betting laws to cover betting offered from outside their territory inward. On the other hand, federal officials have discussed taking over the competence for betting regulation and creating a unified Austrian betting market. The latter would be a significant undertaking, requiring a constitutional amendment and the agreement of the provinces, but federal officials seem confident that the provinces will take a pragmatic approach in light of ubiquitous cross-border betting services.
Finally, the emergence of prediction markets looks to be an area of significant growth in Austria. From the Austrian legal perspective, these online platforms essentially allow for betting on a wide va-riety of events, from traditional sports outcomes to election results. While sports betting is by far the most popular form of betting in Austria, "societal bets" are also known and generally accepted. Fur-thermore, there has already been significant uptake in Austria of cryptocurrencies, which some pre-diction market platforms like Polymarket use to offer their services. Because online betting remains unregulated, the barriers to entry in the Austrian market are effectively non-existent.
Overall, the outlook for betting and gambling in Austria is mixed, but tending towards positive. There are signs that the mostly closed gambling framework may slowly be liberalised, particularly in the sphere of online gambling, and the online betting market remains completely open.
