Crypto Casino
Torrent Gear
TOP-10 of litigation cases affecting the industry
Court rulings have set boundaries for decades for licensing, advertising, payments and player protections. Below are ten cases that have significantly changed the "rules of the game" for operators, content providers, affiliates and regulators in Europe and the United States.
1) Murphy v. NCAA (U.S. Supreme Court, 2018) - the start of the era of legal sports in the United States
The court struck down the federal PASPA law as unconstitutional (a violation of states' rights), thereby paving the way for legalization of sports betting at the state level. Since the decision, dozens of states have adopted their own regulatory regimes. For the industry, this is the largest "market impulse" in recent years.
Lesson: when planning to enter the United States, think "regular": different licenses, taxes, marketing restrictions and RG requirements.
2) Gambelli (C-243/01, EU Court of Justice, 2003) - proportionality of restrictions
The EU court recognized: gambling is an economic activity, restrictions are permissible, but must be consistent and proportional to the goals (protection of the consumer/order), otherwise they contradict freedom of services/establishment. This became the primary framework for subsequent cases.
Lesson: a national ban or monopoly is viable only when there is a demonstrable need and sequence of measures.
3) Placanica (C-338/04 et al., EU Court of Justice, 2007) - licenses ≠ veiled discrimination
The court pointed out: criminal sanctions for activities without a license are unacceptable if the licensing system itself is inaccessible or discriminatory (for example, in the form of a company). This limited "closed" tenders and pushed for more transparent tenders.
Lesson: the conditions of competitions should be open and non-discriminatory; otherwise, the risk of their "fall" in the courts.
4) Liga Portuguesa/Bwin (C-42/07, EU Court of Justice, 2009) - when a monopoly can resist
The court allowed a national monopoly on online games (Portugal) for the purpose of protecting the consumer/combating fraud, if the measures are consistent and actually reduce the risks. Precedent is important for countries with state operators.
Lesson: private traders in the "monopoly" markets need a special compliance case and a strategic dialogue with the regulator.
5) Carmen Media (C-46/08, EU Court of Justice, 2010) - requirement of internal consistency
The court stressed that if the state restricts the online segment, but at the same time encourages offline play/promo, such a policy is inconsistent and risks being incompatible with EU law.
Lesson: it is important for regulators and operators to avoid "double standards" between channels and verticals.
6) Zeturf (C-212/08, EU Court of Justice, 2011) - foreign license ≠ automatic access
The Maltese license did not give Zeturf the right to operate in France contrary to the local model (PMU/FDJ). The court confirmed: countries can maintain strict models (including monopolies) if they are justified.
Lesson: there are no "passporting" licenses in the EU; the operator needs a local strategy and compliance with each market.
7) Stanleybet/William Hill/Sportingbet (C-186/11 and C-209/11, EU Court of Justice, 2013) - about refusals and "silent" decisions
The court considered Greece's refusals to allow private operators when OPAP exists. The line of cases has developed tests of proportionality and effective judicial protection with restrictive market access.
Lesson: with opaque refusals of admission, operators are increasingly gaining time and arguments in the EU courts.
8) Unibet (C-432/05, EU Court of Justice, 2007) - the right to effective judicial protection
The court confirmed: if the national procedure does not allow the operator to challenge the bans (for example, only advertisers are prosecuted), legal protection should be provided in a different way - the principle of efficiency. This helped operators seek "passage" to court.
Lesson: When planning a marketing/affiliate, consider procedural rights of appeal.
9) Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK Supreme Court, 2017) - what is "cheating"
The court revised the dishonesty test and recognized the practice of edge-sorting in baccarat as cheating, although the player did not touch the deck. Precedent influences the treatment of "player vs casino" disputes, T&C policy, dealer training, and anti-fraud procedures.
Lesson: Write down in T&C and in operating procedures what counts as "advantage manipulation" and how the club responds.
10) Spanish Supreme Court (2024) on RD 958/2020 - partial lifting of strict advertising bans
The court annulled a number of norms of Royal Decree 958/2020 (including a complete ban on celebrities), while maintaining a strict base. Spain had to reconfigure warning templates and promo communication rules.
Lesson: even "iron" advertising frameworks can change in the courts - keep creatives and media policies modular.
Bonus block: judicial blocking of illegal immigrants in Denmark (2024-2025)
The Danish regulator regularly goes to courts and seeks massive blocking of illegal sites: in 2024-2025 - record waves (79, then 162 and 178 domains). This is an example of how judicial practice supports the "cleaning" of the market.
Lesson: the fight against "gray" traffic is not only regulatory letters, but also systematic judicial work with telecom operators/sites.
What this means for operators and affiliates - 5 practical conclusions
1. Locality of law. The EU does not give automatic mutual recognition of licenses: study proportionality, monopolies and advertising regimes in each country.
2. Transparent contests. The history of Placanica/Stanleybet teaches: discriminatory tenders fall apart - prepare a "clean" licence application and a defensible group structure.
3. Advertising is a high-risk area. The Spanish case shows: it is better to do the strategy of creativity and celebrity "with a margin" for possible U-turns.
4. Operating T & Cs and anti-fraud. After Ivey, the debate about "fair play" rests on procedures and evidence: train staff, fix logs, update T & C.
5. Anti-illegal - through the courts. Denmark demonstrates: with the support of the court, block waves become effective and regular - keep the "legal-playbook" of interaction with communication providers and platforms.
Mini-timeline of influence
2003-2011 - Gambelli → Placanica → Carmen Media → Zeturf cases form proportionality/sequence tests for the EU.
2017 - Ivey clarifies the line between "skill" and "deception" in casinos.
2018 - Murphy v. NCAA lifts federal barrier to U.S. sports
2024 - Spain's Supreme Court eases some of its advertising bans.
2024-2025 - Denmark sets records for judicial blocking of illegal immigrants.
Court precedents are the "framework" for which licenses, marketing and payments are built up. EU-case-law requires consistency and proportionality of restrictions, the United States after Murphy - a "full-time" strategy for sports, Britain through Ivey - clarity of T&C and procedures, Spain - flexibility of advertising policy, and Denmark - the strength of judicial "de-gray" practice.
For sustainable growth in iGaming, keep the legal map of the market, version policies "like code," prepare evidence of good faith - and you will be ready for new court turns without unnecessary costs.