Streichenberg wins landmark online casino restitution case before Zurich Commercial Court

Background

The claimant, who is domiciled in Switzerland, participated in gambling activities over an extended period on an online casino platform operated by a foreign company and placed numerous bets for this purpose. The operator (the defendant) held neither a licence nor the necessary authorisation to offer online gambling in Switzerland. The claimant argued that the gaming contracts concluded between the parties were void on the grounds of a breach of the Federal Act on Gambling. The payments he had made were therefore without valid legal basis and were to be refunded by the defendant.

Gambling Contracts are Consumer Contracts

A central aspect of the judgment concerns the classification of online gambling contracts as consumer contracts within the meaning of private international law, in relation to the question of the jurisdiction of the court in Switzerland. The Commercial Court expressly stated that this assessment should be based not on the total amount staked over the years, but on the individual bets or the individual gambling contracts. Rather, the decisive question is whether each individual gambling contract constitutes a service for ordinary personal or family consumption. By contrast, the total volume to which the stakes and losses have accumulated over time is not decisive.

Applicability of Swiss law despite a Foreign Operator

The claimant was domiciled in Switzerland. Furthermore, the gaming services were also accessible to people in Switzerland and were, in fact, advertised and offered there. It was sufficient that the gaming services were also directed at Switzerland and could be accessed from there. The acts necessary to conclude the contracts were carried out from Switzerland. In these circumstances, the Court concluded that Swiss law was applicable to the gambling contracts.

Nullity of Gambling Contracts with unlicensed Operators

The Commercial Court concluded that the online gambling offered by the defendant must be deemed unlawful due to the absence of a Swiss licence or authorisation. Although the Federal Act on Gambling contains no express provision declaring such gambling contracts void, the Court held that the consequence of nullity arises from the objectives and purpose of the relevant provisions of Gambling Act.

In this regard, the court attaches particular importance to the protective objectives pursued by the Gambling Act. The licensing requirement serves, in particular, to protect the public from excessive gambling, to combat crime and money laundering, and to ensure safe and transparent gambling operations. These objectives can only be adequately safeguarded if gaming contracts with unauthorised operators are treated as void.

Claims for Restitution in the case of void Gambling Contracts

The Commercial Court directly derived the player’s claims for restitution directly from the nullity of the gambling contracts. As the stakes were paid without a valid legal basis, the operator has benefited from unjust enrichment. The stakes paid must therefore be refunded in accordance with the rules on unjust enrichment set out in Article 62 et seq. of the Swiss Code of Obligations (OR).

The court rejected several objections raised by the defendant against the claim for restitution. It made it clear that unauthorised online gambling is to be treated as an illegal activity under Swiss law and that the resulting contracts are void. Neither restrictions on recovery under the law of unjust enrichment nor the prohibition of abuse of rights preclude a claim for repayment. The decisive factor is that the claim for restitution serves to enforce the protective purposes pursued by the Federal Act on Gambling, and that the public interest in combating illegal online gambling services outweighs the operator’s predominantly financial interest.

Discussion along with existing Case Law

The Commercial Court’s ruling is not an isolated case. The Uster District Court had already ruled, in proceedings against a foreign online casino operator in its judgement of 16 April 2026, that gambling contracts with online casinos not authorised in Switzerland are void and that stakes placed may be reclaimed on the basis of the rules governing unjust enrichment.

However, the Zurich Commercial Court’s judgement goes significantly further. Whilst the Uster District Court focused on assessing the specific individual case, the Commercial Court deals in detail with the fundamental conflict-of-laws issues under private international law and the consequences of nullity.

Free assessment

Affected players are welcome to contact us for an initial, free brief assessment (casino@streichenberg.ch or via the contact form), stating the amount lost, the online casinos involved and the details of their gambling activity. There are various options available to cover legal costs, which we will discuss together.

Please note: limitation period

It is important to interrupt the limitation period in good time. Payments made more than 10 years ago are already time-barred. Furthermore, claims also become time-barred within three years of becoming aware of the claim. If you or a representative/lender has already written to the other party, the three-year period is already running. Interrupt the limitation period now with a request for conciliation.

Further legal advice

If you have any questions regarding your specific case, please start by arranging an initial consultation with me, or proceed directly with an out-of-court claim, a conciliation procedure (before a justice of the peace) or legal proceedings before the court of first instance: Start Case

Further information

Here you will find häufig gestellte Fragen zum Geldspiel with responses from the ESBK (Federal Gaming Board).

Illegal online casinos: ESBK blacklist and GESPA blacklist (For example, Bahigo, Bet365, BWIN and Interwetten are operating illegally in Switzerland!)

Contact form: free short assessment

We will send you further information

Recovery of funds from illegal gambling

Start with an initial consultation, an application for mediation or by bringing a claim

Judgement 2026

Judgement of 29 July 2026 by the Zurich Commercial Court in the Streichenberg case: