CJEU Wunner Judgment: A Powerful Legal Tool Against Illegal Online Casinos and Their Directors

The January 2026 ruling of the CJEU in Wunner (C-77/24) is poised to reshape the legal landscape surrounding illegal online gambling in Europe. The Court clarified that, as a general rule, players are entitled to rely on the law of their own country of residence when filing tort claims against directors of foreign gambling operators that lack the required national licence.

For illegal casino operators, this significantly raises the personal exposure of directors. For players, it creates a clearer and more practical path to pursue claims locally rather than navigating complex offshore legal systems.

Key Findings of the Wunner Case

The CJEU established several important principles in Wunner (C-77/24):

• Players may generally rely on the law of their country of residence when suing directors of unlicensed foreign gambling operators.
• The place where damage occurs is typically considered to be the Member State where the player habitually resides.
• Claims against directors fall under tort or delict within the scope of the Rome II Regulation, not company law.
• The case involved an Austrian player suing directors of Titanium Brace Marketing Limited, a Maltese-licensed operator without a licence in Austria.
• The CJEU did not determine liability; it interpreted EU law, leaving the final decision to the national court.

Why the Wunner Judgment Is Important

The ruling goes beyond a technical interpretation of conflict-of-law rules. It directly impacts how illegal online casinos structure their operations across jurisdictions.

For years, operators have relied on fragmented corporate setups:

• Incorporation in one country
• Licensing in another
• Management from a third location
• Targeting players across Europe

The Wunner judgment disrupts this model. It establishes that, in director liability cases related to illegal gambling, the central legal reference point is typically the player’s country of residence.

Case Background: Austrian Player vs. Maltese Operator

The dispute originated from an Austrian player who filed a claim against two directors of Titanium Brace Marketing Limited. While the company held a Maltese gambling licence, it did not have authorization to operate in Austria.

The player argued:

• The gambling contract was invalid under Austrian law
• The directors should bear personal liability for the unlawful offering

The directors contested:

• Jurisdiction (arguing Malta was the relevant location)
• Applicable law (claiming Maltese law should apply)

The Austrian Supreme Court referred these questions to the CJEU.

Legal Interpretation by the CJEU

The Court confirmed that:

1. Rome II Regulation Applies

The case concerns non-contractual obligations (tort/delict), making the Rome II Regulation applicable.

2. Not a Pure Company Law Matter

Director liability in this context arises from obligations external to internal corporate governance, meaning it is not excluded from Rome II.

3. Place of Damage = Player’s Residence

The key determining factor is where the damage occurred. In online gambling, this is generally the player’s habitual residence.

4. Exception Clause

If circumstances show a stronger connection to another country, courts may deviate. However, the default position remains the player’s home jurisdiction.

Increased Risk for Casino Directors

The implications for directors and related actors in the illegal gambling ecosystem are significant:

• Corporate structuring across jurisdictions no longer guarantees legal insulation
• Foreign licences may not shield directors from liability
• National laws of targeted players can govern claims

Affected roles include:

• Directors and nominee managers
• Trust-office representatives
• Governance-layer participants

While the ruling does not automatically impose liability, it confirms that such claims are legally viable and grounded in EU law.

What This Means for Players

For players, the Wunner judgment provides a strategic advantage:

• Claims can be pursued under domestic law
• No need to litigate in foreign jurisdictions
• Increased chances of recovery in regulated environments

The Court also addressed the nature of online gambling, confirming that such activities should be legally located where the player resides.

Relevance for Scam-Or Project Investigations

This ruling directly aligns with ongoing investigations by Scam-Or Project into illegal casino networks, payment infrastructures, and corporate structures.

The focus now shifts from:

• Whether a licence was missing

to:

• Who controlled and directed the operation
• Who enabled the illegal offering
• Which individuals may face personal liability

For networks operating through jurisdictions like Malta, Curaçao, or Cyprus, the decision increases scrutiny on directors and formal management entities.

Summary Box

Conclusion

The Wunner ruling sends a clear and direct message to the illegal online gambling sector:

• Targeting players without a valid local licence carries real legal consequences
• Offshore structures no longer guarantee protection
• Directors may face personal liability under the law of the player’s country

For players, this creates new opportunities for legal action.
For operators and their management, it represents a growing legal risk.

Request for Information

If you have worked with or inside:

• Illegal online casinos
• Payment processors
• Platform providers
• Affiliate networks
• Trust offices or nominee-director structures

you can securely share information via the Scam-Or Project whistleblower section.

If you are a player who suffered losses from a casino operating without a proper national licence, you may submit:

• Payment records
• Account communications
• Legal documentation

Your contribution can help uncover the individuals and structures behind these operations.