GGL continues domain blocks despite court ruling

Germany's gambling regulatory framework has undergone significant transformation in recent years, particularly with the implementation of the State Treaty on Gambling 2021 (Glücksspielstaatsvertrag 2021, GlüStV 2021). This legislation marked a concerted effort by federal and state authorities to create a unified, regulated gambling market across the country. The primary aim has been to control illegal gambling operations, protect consumers, and uphold public order by ensuring that only licensed operators can legally provide gambling services in Germany.

The treaty provided new enforcement mechanisms, including blocking measures that could restrict access to illegal gambling content. However, recent developments have raised legal questions about the extent and applicability of these measures, particularly in relation to internet service providers (ISPs).

Court ruling limits enforcement through IP blocking

In a landmark decision issued on March 19, 2024, the Federal Administrative Court of Germany (Bundesverwaltungsgericht, BVerwG) clarified that under the GlüStV 2021, the use of internet access providers to enforce IP blocking against gambling websites is not legally enforceable. The ruling reaffirms a prior decision by the Higher Administrative Court of Koblenz and limits the interpretation and application of Article 9(1) of the State Treaty.

The decision has significant implications for the enforcement strategies previously considered by regulators. Specifically, it restricts the ability of authorities to compel ISPs to block access to unlicensed gambling websites through IP-based methods, which are generally more immediate and impactful on end-users.

GGL maintains host-based enforcement strategy

Despite the limitations imposed by the court ruling, the Joint Gambling Authority of the Länder (Gemeinsame Glücksspielbehörde der Länder, or GGL) has indicated that its current enforcement strategies remain unaffected. In fact, the GGL had already transitioned away from relying on internet access providers following similar legal decisions in 2022.

The GGL has redirected its enforcement efforts toward host providers, which are entities responsible for supplying the server infrastructure or domain hosting services used by gambling operators. This host-based strategy has enabled the regulator to successfully block or render inaccessible over 930 domains associated with illegal or unlicensed gambling operators. According to GGL statistics, approximately 60 new domains are added to this blocklist on a monthly basis.

While host-based measures can be more time-consuming to implement—requiring identification of hosting services, issuing formal orders, and occasionally engaging in legal proceedings—they have proven effective in disrupting illegal gambling operations. If an operator attempts to circumvent enforcement by migrating to a new host provider, the GGL resumes the enforcement process.

Legal implications and future amendments

From a legal perspective, the court’s decision reinforces the principle of proportionality and highlights the limitations regulators face under current German and European law. The judgment underscores the need for legal clarity and adequate legislative authority when applying digital enforcement techniques such as IP blocking.

In response, the GGL has reaffirmed its intention to pursue amendments to existing legal provisions. These proposed changes aim to expand the regulator’s enforcement capabilities and close any legal gaps that have emerged through judicial review. Among the changes being considered are:

• Expanding blocking authority to cover illegal gambling advertisements
• Streamlining enforcement procedures similar to those used in payment blocking cases
• Introducing clearer legal foundations for future digital enforcement tools

The GGL has been working closely with state authorities to draft and advance these legislative proposals. The intention is to ensure more effective enforcement while complying with judicial decisions and maintaining legal certainty.

Balancing enforcement and digital rights

The court’s decision also reflects a broader legal and ethical consideration: balancing regulatory enforcement with individual rights, particularly freedom of information and access to the internet. Courts have consistently maintained that blocking orders must be proportionate, targeted, and based on clear legal grounds to avoid unintended consequences or censorship.

This balancing act is particularly challenging in the digital age, where enforcement actions can easily affect lawful content or innocent third parties. As such, the legal scrutiny applied by the courts serves as a necessary check on the powers granted to administrative bodies like the GGL.

Collaboration and harm prevention initiatives

In addition to legal enforcement, the GGL has continued its broader mandate to prevent gambling-related harm and protect consumers. In March 2024, the authority held a joint session with regional coordinators to discuss harm prevention strategies, responsible gambling initiatives, and consumer protection programs. The session highlighted the need for collaborative efforts among the Länder (federal states) to maintain a consistent and harmonized regulatory framework for gambling across Germany.

These initiatives complement the GGL’s enforcement efforts and reinforce its dual role as both a regulatory and public health authority.

Global context: enforcement in other jurisdictions

Germany's legal approach can be seen in the context of international regulatory developments. For example, earlier in 2024, Spanish authorities imposed €77.4 million in penalties on 14 illegal gambling operators, underscoring a growing European consensus on the need for strong enforcement against unauthorized gambling.

While each country’s legal framework differs, regulators across the European Union are increasingly adopting both punitive and preventative strategies to address the proliferation of illegal gambling content online. The German model, particularly the GGL's host-based blocking strategy, could serve as a case study for other jurisdictions navigating similar legal challenges.

Industry response and compliance concerns

The online gambling industry is closely monitoring these legal developments. For operators, the court ruling provides clarity on enforcement mechanisms and reaffirms the importance of compliance with licensing requirements. Industry associations have generally welcomed judicial oversight but remain cautious about potential legislative changes that could introduce stricter or more ambiguous obligations.

Legal experts have noted that while the decision limits one enforcement path, it does not offer a safe harbor for unlicensed operators. Host-based actions remain a potent tool, and any operators attempting to bypass German law may still face significant regulatory and reputational risks.

Conclusion

The Federal Administrative Court’s ruling marks a significant development in Germany’s ongoing efforts to regulate online gambling. By curtailing the use of IP blocking through internet access providers, the decision sets a clear legal boundary. However, the GGL’s continued focus on host-based enforcement ensures that unlicensed gambling domains remain subject to regulatory action.

With further legal amendments in progress and cooperation across federal states, Germany’s gambling enforcement landscape is likely to evolve further. While the court decision imposes some limitations, it also presents an opportunity for more refined, legally grounded, and proportionate regulatory mechanisms to emerge.

FAQs

What did the German court rule regarding IP blocking?
The Federal Administrative Court ruled that the 2021 State Treaty does not authorize IP blocking via internet access providers.

Does this decision affect the GGL's enforcement measures?
No, the GGL clarified that it had already shifted to host-based blocking, which remains unaffected by the court ruling.

What is host-based blocking?
Host-based blocking targets the servers and infrastructure that host illegal gambling websites rather than relying on internet access providers.

How many domains has the GGL blocked using host-based methods?
Over 930 domains have been blocked, with around 60 added to the list each month.

Why did the court reject IP blocking orders?
The court found that IP blocking via ISPs is not sufficiently supported by Article 9(1) of the GlüStV 2021 and may infringe on digital rights.

Will there be changes to the existing law?
Yes, the GGL is working on legal amendments to expand enforcement powers and clarify procedures for blocking illegal content.

Is host-based enforcement legally secure?
Yes, host-based measures are currently considered legally sound and are being actively used by the GGL to block unlicensed operators.

Are there similar cases in other EU countries?
Yes, countries like Spain have also intensified enforcement, recently imposing over €77 million in fines against illegal operators.

Does this ruling benefit unlicensed gambling operators?
Not necessarily. While IP blocking is limited, host-based enforcement remains effective and continues to pose a risk to illegal operators.

How does this affect consumers?
The ruling helps ensure that enforcement measures are legally grounded and proportionate, protecting both consumers and digital freedoms.