Ruling: No IP blocks against illegal online casinos, but..

IP blocking is generally seen as the most effective weapon in the fight against illegal online gambling. The Joint Gambling Authority of the German federal states (GGL) wanted to use it immediately after it was given responsibility for combating the gambling black market in Germany. However, the judiciary had its objections. Recently, the Federal Administrative Court once again confirmed that IP bans are not enforceable. However, GGL continues to negotiate and is using an alternative method in the meantime.

When the Joint Gambling Authority of the Federal States (GGL) officially took the helm in the fight against illegal gambling on July 1, 2022, the motivation seemed great. A circular was promptly sent out to all internet providers (access providers) operating in Germany, asking them to voluntarily impose network blocks on websites with illegal online gambling. At the time, we wondered whether the gambling authority would soon start IP blocking.

The following points were made in detail:

• According to the Interstate Treaty on Gambling, the GGL is responsible for network blocks against unlicensed gambling.
• Online providers without an entry on the whitelist would be operating illegally.
• Enforcement abroad is difficult - which is why the access providers must now take action.
• Technical implementation is left to the providers, but DNS blocks are recommended.
• Those who do not block voluntarily must expect an injunction and a fine (up to 500,000 euros).
• Administrative costs of between 500 and 500,000 euros are also possible.

✘ It was to be expected that this move would not simply be accepted. Some providers were cautious, others were furious. Telekom and Vodafone, for example, referred to the applicable law and emphasized that they would only implement network blocking after receiving an official order and going through a procedure - and not on demand. A smaller provider went even further and spoke of a "rather unsubtle letter of blackmail".

✘ There was also political criticism: Tabea Rößner (Greens) called the procedure "unfortunate", Petra Sitte (Left) even saw it as an "invitation to break the law". FDP digital politician Maximilian Funke-Kaiser warned of disproportionate encroachments on fundamental rights. The GGL tried to appease and emphasized the cooperative idea behind the letter - but not without once again pointing out possible sanctions if providers refused to cooperate.

The question of "IP blocking for illegal online gambling - yes or no?" finally ended up in court. In the same year, the judges made it clear that "the standard of the gambling blocking regulations (also known as IP blocking for short) is to be classified as de facto inapplicable to access providers": this can now be read once again in a recent GGL press release. The subject of the publication was the reconfirmation of this view by the Federal Administrative Court (BVerwG) on March 19, 2025.

It is therefore clear that players in Germany will probably not soon be able (or have to) be prevented from connecting to servers of illegal casino or betting sites via the IP address of Internet services. However, those operating on the black market should not rejoice too soon, as the GGL continues to strongly advocate a change to the current regulation. At the same time, an alternative strategy for the exclusion of black market offers is being pursued, in which so-called host providers play a central role. Incidentally, the Gambling Authority recently called for an extension of Section 284 of the Criminal Code to include online offers, which would probably significantly tighten the criminal law situation for operators and players.

GGL accepts the decision calmly, but giving in is not an option

At first glance, the recent ruling by the Federal Administrative Court may seem like a bitter setback for GGL. However, in the relevant press release, the company appears quite unimpressed. According to GGL, the ruling has no immediate consequences for the ongoing measures against illegal online gambling. The authority had already concentrated on other strategies at an early stage, with a particular focus on the so-called host providers, i.e. the technical service providers that make websites available on their servers.

It is no coincidence that this Plan B has not just been in the drawer since yesterday. After the first critical court rulings, the GGL began to re-evaluate its tactics and no longer clung to a legally shaky blocking order against access providers. Nevertheless, the issue of IP blocking does not seem to be completely off the table. As part of the ongoing evaluation of the State Treaty on Gambling, those responsible drew attention to structural weaknesses.

According to the press release, "the urgency of swiftly adapting the IP blocking standard was repeatedly pointed out". It goes on to say: "An adaptation of the standard outside of the regular evaluation will be examined, particularly with regard to the question of responsibility, and is expected to be implemented in the near future."

There is also a discussion as to whether advertising for illegal gambling should also be blockable in future.

From the GGL's point of view, a change to the standard outside of the regular review is absolutely necessary - and according to its own information, is already at an advanced stage of preparation. The authority's appeal seems clear: they don't want to wait and see, they want to shape things - and as soon as possible.

In this context, it is also interesting to note that we recently asked ourselves whether it would make sense to have a separate public prosecutor's office for illegal betting providers.

Alternative to IP bans: How host providers can become the Achilles' heel of illegal gambling sites

As access providers have not (yet) succeeded in stopping illegal online gambling in Germany, the GGL is turning its attention to another group of technical service providers: the so-called host providers. They not only provide storage space for websites, but often also control the domain administration - and therefore access to the offers themselves.

• According to GGL, the process varies in practice. Some service providers send the request to the operator of the online casino or sports betting platform - according to the motto: "Take care of it yourself."
• Others go one step further and block access from Germany themselves or delete the site completely.

Of course, some operators try to circumvent the restrictions - for example by changing their host provider. But here too, the GGL is staying on the ball: in such cases, the entire process starts all over again with the new provider. However, the authority admits that the method is very time-consuming. In contrast to IP blocking, however, the legal basis here is much more robust and "unaffected by the current decision of the Federal Administrative Court".

Conclusion

Source of the image: https://pixabay.com/de/photos/hacken-cyber-schwarz-und-wei%C3%9F-2903156/

Central text sources: https://www.gluecksspiel-behoerde.de/de/news/entscheidung-des-bundesverwaltungsgerichts-zu-gluecksspielrechtlichen-sperranordnungen-auswirkungen-und-weiteres-vorgehen-der-ggl, https://gamesundbusiness.de/ovg-rheinland-pfalz-ip-sperren-sind-rechtswidrig