GGL calls for stricter legislation: Focus also on users of illegal online gambling

At a recent congress in Berlin, the GGL spoke about (new) measures to advance the fight against the black market in Germany. One of the topics discussed was Section 284 of the German Criminal Code (StGB), which criminalizes illegal gambling. If the authorities have their way, this should be clearly extended to online providers based abroad as quickly as possible. In fact, such an amendment could have considerable consequences for casinos or sports betting platforms and their users!

On Thursday, March 13, 2025, the German vending machine industry hosted a congress at Cafe Moskau in Berlin. Numerous panel discussions with politicians, scientists, entrepreneurs and industry representatives took place there. Current industry topics were discussed, ranging from the latest findings in gambling research to the State Treaty on Gambling (GlüStV) - and, of course, the black market.

In the latter context, the presentation by Ronald Benter, Chairman of the Joint Gambling Authority of the Federal States (GGL), attracted a lot of attention. He spoke (once again) about measures to combat illegal gambling on the Internet. However, he did not just repeat the familiar, but also highlighted the relevance of new approaches. Benter's statements and demands were so explosive that the GGL even issued a press release on the subject.

Essentially, it calls for a "tightening of the framework conditions for combating illegal gambling". This comes as no surprise. After all, the GGL is constantly working on regulatory tools to make them more effective. In summer 2024, for example, the powers to prevent advertising measures for unauthorized offers abroad were expanded. In the GGL's positive annual review for 2024 or as part of the disclosure of specific processes in the trial of strength with illegal online casinos, the authority made it clear that it considers further development and looking ahead to be very important.

Of course, this reads somewhat strangely at first. After all, shouldn't it generally be a criminal offense to participate in illegal gambling - regardless of whether it takes place locally in Germany or via an online provider based abroad? So why does the GGL believe it is important to extend Section 284 of the German Criminal Code? And, above all, what could this mean for players who operate on black market platforms? The following should be made clear straight away: So far, the GGL's demand remains unchanged. There are no concrete signs that it will actually be implemented. Nevertheless, the matter is quite exciting, which is why we want to take a closer look at the possible effects here.

What could the extension of Section 284 StGB to illegal online providers based abroad entail?

An explicit extension of Section 284 StGB to foreign providers would very likely mean considerably more pressure - both for operators and players. To date, the focus of the law has been on the event and brokerage level within Germany, meaning that companies based abroad are often difficult to prosecute. However, an amendment would result in a clearer regulation of criminal liability and thus more leverage for the judiciary. It could also create a broader legal basis for taking action against users of such services.

• Clearer legal situation: Currently, authorities have to argue to a certain extent that the online offers of foreign companies also fall under Section 284 StGB. Explicit inclusion in the law would eliminate this room for interpretation and thus facilitate investigation proceedings.
• Extended prosecution options against players: At present, investigations against German customers of illegal online casinos or betting providers mainly rely on transaction reports from banks and other third-party information. Legal clarification would presumably open the door to more active prosecution options. Illegal gambling use could thus be detected more systematically - possibly even through direct cooperation with payment service providers or tracking.
• More deterrence for players: A clear legal regulation would increase the risk of users being prosecuted. The state could then focus on targeted deterrent measures, for example through specific information campaigns.
• Potentially tougher penalties : If the legislator introduces a clear regulation, an increase in penalties for players could also be discussed in order to make the use of illegal providers even less attractive. The same applies to operators.
• Pressure on payment providers and network blocks: Ultimately, a legal adjustment would presumably also make banks, payment service providers and internet providers more accountable. There would be a stronger legal basis for preventing transactions or access to illegal gambling sites.

All of these possible effects would be quite drastic. However, the consequences could be even more far-reaching under certain conditions. Ronald Benter also argued in Berlin that corresponding legislative changes would "create the legal basis for the establishment of a specialized public prosecutor's office in Halle by the state of Saxony-Anhalt". This would enable centralized and ultimately even more targeted prosecution.

• Specialized investigators with a focus on providers and players: Investigations into illegal providers and their customers are currently spread across various authorities. A central public prosecutor's office could concentrate on these cases and work more effectively. Investigators would deal in depth with the structures of illegal casinos and betting providers and the relevant usage habits.
• Shorter proceedings and higher success rates: Centralized coordination would allow proceedings to be initiated more quickly. They would no longer be distributed among various state public prosecutors' offices. Repeated violations or patterns would be recognized more reliably and more effective action would be taken.
• Greater deterrence: Centralized and consistent criminal prosecution could lead to more convictions, which would tend to deter potential users and providers even more. This in turn could lead to a considerable narrowing of the illegal market.

Speaking of "market contraction": In mid-January, we reported on the so-called "casino papers", which reveal the explosive structures of illegal online casinos, and speculated whether this could lead to changes in the European black market for gambling.

The second major topic was advertising

Ronald Benter made it unmistakably clear in Berlin: advertising for illegal offers remains a red flag - and the GGL is not afraid to put even big names in their place.

This has long since ceased to apply only to classic advertising measures originating from casinos or betting providers themselves. In the digital age, comparison portals with affiliate marketing and extensive advertising networks are major battlegrounds for the gambling watchdogs. The authority was able to celebrate a notable success in September 2024 when Google closed its advertising platform in Germany to providers without a local license after the GGL exerted influence. However, according to Benter, the battle is far from won. New obfuscation techniques are a particular challenge. For example, so-called cloaking presents website visitors with different content under identical URLs than the search engine crawlers.

In this context, IP blocking is being considered as a new weapon: Benter would like to create a legal basis to combat advertising for illegal gambling directly at the root with IP blocks. Comparison sites would also be affected by this.

"It would be helpful if a new standard for IP blocking against advertisers were also introduced as quickly as possible," says Benter.

Conclusion

Source of the image: https://pixabay.com/illustrations/ai-generated-man-work-laptop-8784915/

Central text sources: https://gluecksspiel-behoerde.de/de/news/daw-kongress-berlin-ggl-vorstand-plaediert-fuer-schaerfung-der-rahmenbedingungen-fuer-die-bekaempfung-illegalen-gluecksspiels, https://gamesundbusiness.de/daw-kongress-2025-vielfaeltiges-programm-zahlreiche-besucher-super-stimmung