International Law

BWin Case

By Karl-Friedrich Lenz

The Eu Law Blog has a short report on the recent BWin gambling case of the European Court of Justice.

That case is a large setback for the internal market in gambling services. While earlier cases like Gambelli left some leeway for national courts to approve cross-border services in this sector, this case goes way back in the other direction.

BWin is a gambling operator established in Gibraltar, with servers in Austria. The Court thinks Portugal should be entitled to shut them out of the Portuguese football betting market, preserving the monopoly and profits of a Portuguese operator.

One reason the Court gives is that Internet transactions are more likely to be fraudulent than those over other means (for example telephone). The Court does not present any factual evidence for this assertion it just freely made up. Of course there is no base in reality for this speculation. The level of trust in a transaction depends on the partner, not on the means of communication. Or does the Court wish to say that BWin is fraudulent as long as it operates over the Internet, but trustworthy the moment it collects bets over the telephone?

The Court then adds, at paragraph 71 of the judgment, this reason:

Moreover, the possibility cannot be ruled out that an operator which sponsors some of the sporting competitions on which it accepts bets and some of the teams taking part in those competitions may be in a position to influence their outcome directly or indirectly, and thus increase its profits.

Sure. The Portuguese football teams will follow orders from BWin and offer fixed matches, because BWin is the largest sponsor of the league. Anyone can see that clear and present danger. (/irony).
Again, a claim completely without base in reality.

Full post as published by Lenz Blog on September 28, 2009 (boomark / email).