Germany's gambling market appears to be at a pivotal moment. Following years of stringent regulations that have led to decreased channelisation and heightened black market activity, policymakers are finally paying closer attention to industry concerns. The ongoing review of the Interstate Treaty on Gambling, known as GlĂĽStV 2021, is set to culminate in a comprehensive evaluation report by December 31, 2026. This report aims to gauge the effectiveness of the law in achieving its objectives, particularly in channelisation and player protection.
Luka Andric, managing director of the German Sports Betting Association (DSWV), notes that the review is evolving from a mere formality into a substantive discussion about the practical effectiveness of the 2021 framework. He emphasizes the need for a reality check, stating, “Rules that have proven ineffective, especially concerning channelisation, must be revised or removed.”
The Balance Has Tipped
The initial goals of the GlĂĽStV 2021 were straightforward: establish a cohesive national framework, enforce strict player protections, and enable legal operators to effectively compete against the black market. However, the situation has proven to be more complex. After years of rigid regulations, German authorities are now more receptive to the industry's concerns.
Michelle Hembury from Melchers Rechtsanwälte, a German law firm, observes that the regulator and industry are moving toward a more collaborative dialogue. This shift is attributed to various legal, practical, and institutional factors.
While the legislation aimed to create a tightly regulated market to attract players away from unlicensed operators, the balance has tipped too far. Stringent player protection measures, such as a €1 maximum stake on slots, mandatory five-second spin delays, and a €1,000 monthly deposit cap, have diminished the appeal of licensed products. Simultaneously, a 5.3% tax on stakes has squeezed operator margins, making it challenging to compete with offshore alternatives.
Andric adds, “There is a growing awareness that the current framework is not meeting its primary objective: to create a sufficiently attractive legal market. Only a competitive legal market can retain players in a regulated environment and ensure effective protection.”
The result has been a persistent black market. Simon Priglinger-Simader, vice-president of the German Online Casino Association (DOCV), points out that this reflects a structural issue. “Overregulation and excessive taxation do not yield positive outcomes,” he argues. “Instead, they push players toward the black market.”
Dr. Gabriele Stark-LĂĽtke Schwienhorst, a senior associate at CMS, emphasizes that even a well-designed framework can fail if it doesn't function effectively in practice. A coherent regime can still be commercially ineffective if it fails to direct demand toward licensed markets.
German Interstate Treaty Review Expected on Time?
The review of the Interstate Treaty is extensive, with responsibilities divided among Germany's 16 states, each tasked with assessing various aspects of the regime, including licensing, advertising, and product rules.
Hembury describes this approach as structured, with states taking on 'sponsorship' roles for different areas, facilitating detailed evaluations of how each provision has performed in practice. Authorities are currently operating within their self-imposed deadlines, suggesting that results should be available by the end of 2026.
However, some anticipate delays. Priglinger-Simader notes previous setbacks in the timeline and believes the final evaluation may not surface until 2027. “There is simply a lot of work involved,” he explains. “Discussions among the 16 German states are complex.”
More significant than timing is the substance of the findings. Expectations remain tempered. “I wouldn’t foresee major changes or a fundamental shift in German gambling regulation,” Priglinger-Simader states. Instead, he anticipates a series of targeted adjustments rather than a complete overhaul. Dr. Stark-Lütke Schwienhorst concurs, suggesting the process is best viewed as “evaluation-backed calibration.”
A More Open Dialogue
While sweeping reforms seem unlikely, the tone of engagement has noticeably shifted. Recent court rulings have led to more balanced interpretations of the framework, promoting constructive dialogue. However, bureaucratic hurdles continue to frustrate both sides.
Hembury notes, “The bureaucratic and formalistic approach has slowed down many processes, uniting the industry and the regulator in a more pragmatic and efficient work stream.” There is increasing alignment on core objectives, she adds: “Both the industry and the regulator seek similar goals: licenses, game approvals, bet permissions, and overall channelisation of customers to the white-listed market.”
Priglinger-Simader agrees that cooperation has improved since the regulator became fully operational in 2023, but he warns that alignment across Germany’s federal states remains inconsistent. Dr. Stark-Lütke Schwienhorst points out that while the regulator is engaging more openly, it remains committed to a data-driven approach.
What Could Change as Part of the Interstate Treaty Review?
The central question is whether enhanced dialogue will lead to meaningful reform. Germany has faced challenges in curbing illegal operators, as court rulings have highlighted gaps in the legal basis for IP blocking, prompting calls for stronger enforcement. Product regulation is another area of concern. Online casino games, particularly table games, remain fragmented under state-level control, and nearly five years after legalisation, there are still limited licensed offerings.
“This indicates that the current system hasn’t worked,” Priglinger-Simader asserts. Moving toward a unified national framework would represent “a major step forward.”
Player protection measures are also under scrutiny. The €1,000 monthly deposit limit has faced criticism for being overly restrictive. Some changes are already visible, allowing deposit limits to be raised to €30,000 in exceptional circumstances under strict conditions. Dr. Stark-Lütke Schwienhorst views this as evidence of the system's adaptability, with “narrower adjustments” possible within the existing framework.
Further changes may be on the horizon. Priglinger-Simader points to the potential for increased slot stake limits and modifications to gameplay restrictions as areas where early signals could emerge. Andric notes, “The challenge now is to translate this understanding into tangible regulatory adjustments.”
Number One Issue
If product rules present one challenge, taxation poses another, perhaps more significant, hurdle. Germany's 5.3% tax on gambling stakes has drawn widespread criticism for undermining competitiveness. By reducing margins, it hampers operators' ability to offer appealing products and diminishes return-to-player rates.
Priglinger-Simader emphasizes its importance: “The number one issue is the stake tax for online slots.” Transitioning to a gross gaming revenue model could enhance the competitiveness of licensed products. Dr. Stark-Lütke Schwienhorst arrives at a similar conclusion, suggesting that the current model incentivizes consumers to gravitate toward unregulated options, conflicting with the goal of channelisation.
Yet reform remains complex. Tax policy is under federal jurisdiction, outside the direct purview of the Interstate Treaty, necessitating broader political consensus.
Lessons for Neighbouring Gambling Markets
Germany's experience is increasingly relevant to neighboring markets, particularly as other European nations navigate similar regulatory landscapes. The Netherlands offers a clear parallel. A series of tax increases and tighter restrictions have begun to burden the licensed market, with early signs of declining revenues and channelisation concerns mirroring Germany's earlier trajectory.
Chris Elliott from Wiggin highlights the predictable nature of this pattern. “Tax and regulation cannot be considered in isolation,” he states. Increased duties alter operator economics, limiting their capacity to provide competitive pricing, bonuses, and products. Consequently, “consumers will migrate to offshore sites that are not subject to those constraints, particularly those who are more price and product sensitive.”
Germany also illustrates the difficulty of reversing such shifts. “As the regulated market becomes less competitive, the allure of operating outside it grows,” Elliott cautions. Crucially, “once channelisation is lost, it is challenging to regain.”
Melanie Ellis of Northbridge Law underscores the nature of the issue. “The consequences of high taxes and restrictive regulations in the Netherlands and Germany demonstrate how well-intentioned measures can undermine their own policy objectives,” she remarks.
Wulf Hambach, a partner at Hambach & Hambach, observes, “Germany's situation serves as a learning example for the UK and the Netherlands: on one hand, you must create enough space for competition among licensed operators to offer new gambling products, and on the other, you need sufficient flexibility to intervene as a regulator when potential dangers or negative effects arise.”
UK Should Take Notice
Industry experts caution that the UK could face similar challenges following the government's introduction of steep tax hikes for the gambling sector. “The lesson for the British government and the Gambling Commission—though it may come a bit late—is that customers can and will take their business elsewhere if too many restrictions are implemented, especially if this occurs in a short timeframe,” Ellis warns.
She also raises another concern: “While each individual measure can be justified on player protection grounds, the cumulative effect ironically leads to players, including the most vulnerable, gambling in environments with little to no protections.”
This creates a well-documented policy paradox: rules intended to protect consumers may ultimately expose them to greater risks. For both Ellis and Elliott, the lesson is one of adjustment. Elliott stresses the importance of evaluating whether new policies and enforcement measures are sufficient to maintain channelisation. If not, the outcome becomes “lose/lose”: diminished tax revenues and weaker consumer protection.
Ellis emphasizes the need for evidence-based approaches. “It is crucial that the UK Gambling Commission enhances its efforts to measure and monitor the scale of the black market,” she argues, advocating for a careful assessment of the impact of regulatory changes and tax increases to inform future policy decisions.
Fragile Progress
Germany's regulatory framework is unlikely to experience a dramatic overhaul. The commitment to robust player protection remains, and political constraints limit the scope for reform. However, the trajectory is clearly shifting.
Priglinger-Simader suggests that if we witness changes such as increased stake limits, it would be a clear indication that regulators are listening. Hembury shares this cautious optimism but notes that not every improvement in dialogue will necessarily lead to legislative changes.
Germany's experience highlights how easily regulation can drift out of balance—and how challenging it is to restore that balance once lost. The early signs of meaningful change are present. Whether they take root will depend on the willingness of policymakers to act decisively.
Comments