The Block That Didn’t Stick: Inside Germany’s Landmark ISP Ruling on Gambling

Germany’s highest administrative court has dealt a decisive blow to one of its gambling regulator’s enforcement tactics. In a March 2024 ruling, the Federal Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht, BVerwG) upheld a prior judgement that internet access providers cannot be compelled to block access to online gambling websites. This decision – essentially confirming that “Article 9 of the State Treaty on Gambling 2021 (GlüStV 2021) does not allow authorities to compel internet access providers to block gambling websites” – reverberates far beyond Germany’s borders. For gambling operators, the ruling has immediate implications for compliance and market strategy, while reigniting debates on censorship, player rights, and the evolving dynamics of regulation in the digital era.

The Court’s Verdict: Why ISPs Can’t Be Forced to Block Gambling Sites

At the heart of the case is a clash between Germany’s gambling law and long-standing principles of internet liability. The Joint Gambling Authority of the Länder (GGL) – Germany’s unified gambling regulator – had sought to use a provision of the 2021 State Treaty on Gambling to order ISPs to block unlicensed gambling websites. But the courts found a legal mismatch: the treaty’s Section 9(1) S.3 No.5 can only target intermediaries who are “responsible” for the content under Germany’s Telemedia Act (TMG). By design, access providers (ISPs) are mere conduits of data and enjoy liability exemptions for third-party content. The BVerwG judges determined the treaty “refers solely to the responsibility of providers under Section 8 of the Telemedia Act… The purpose of the provision does not justify an interpretation contrary to the wording.” In other words, the law as written simply didn’t contemplate using ISPs as internet gatekeepers in this context.

The Federal Administrative Court’s ruling aligned with an earlier decision by the Higher Administrative Court of Koblenz, which had already signaled that network blocking orders against ISPs were not legally tenable. By upholding that stance, the BVerwG effectively closed the door on ISP-directed gambling blocks – at least “in any practically conceivable scenario”, as one court put it . Notably, the judges also emphasised that no other legal basis exists to impose such blocking, given the conclusive nature of the State Treaty’s enforcement provisions. European law, they added, posed no obstacle to this interpretation, making it clear that the failure was in the German regulation itself.

For gambling operators, this legal reasoning offers a measure of clarity. It means that under current German law, an ISP cannot be enlisted to outright censor a gambling site just because that site lacks a local license. However, this clarity comes with a caveat: the ruling is rooted in a technical legal gap – one that regulators are already moving to close.

Enforcement Unfazed: GGL’s Workaround and Response

Germany’s regulator, the GGL, responded to the verdict with a mix of resolve and pragmatism. Publicly, it “confirmed that the ruling does not affect its current enforcement efforts.” In fact, GGL had anticipated this outcome. Since late 2022, when lower courts first cast doubt on IP-blocking orders, the authority pivoted its strategy away from fighting ISPs in court. Instead, the GGL adopted a host-based blocking approach: targeting the web hosting providers and infrastructure services that actually keep illegal gambling sites online.

This “resource intensive” but effective tactic has, by the GGL’s own account, rendered over 930 domains inaccessible within Germany to date. Each month, dozens of new illicit domains are added to the blockade (about 60 new blocks are imposed monthly). When one site is taken down and reappears on a new host, the regulator simply whack-a-moles the domain again, repeating the process with the next provider. It’s a slower, more manual form of censorship – one that requires intensive investigation and ongoing cat-and-mouse efforts, but it avoids entanglement with ISP liability law.

Crucially, the court’s ruling leaves this host-based enforcement untouched. From the GGL’s perspective, the judgement was a setback in principle but moot in practice. “We have not relied on ISP blocks for some time,” the authority essentially noted, and the existing campaign against illegal gambling sites will “continue unabated”. For licensed operators in Germany, this assurance is welcome: the regulator is still in the fight to shut out unlicensed rivals, just using different tools. For unlicensed operators, the message is clear – you’re still squarely in the crosshairs, even if via indirect means.

Industry Impact: Relief for ISPs, Mixed Feelings for Operators

The immediate winners from the judgement are the internet providers who resisted becoming the internet’s “gambling police.” One major ISP, 1&1, had challenged the GGL’s order early on and “welcomed the decision” when courts first sided with it. Telecom firms argued that being forced to implement gambling blocks would set a dangerous precedent, potentially opening the floodgates to broader internet censorship demands. Germany’s court ultimately agreed with the ISPs’ legal arguments, if not explicitly their fears of overreach.

Licensed gambling operators have reacted with guarded optimism. On one hand, any legal defeat for the regulator in curbing the black market is bad news for the regulated industry’s interests. Those holding German licenses have long complained about the persistence of unlicensed sites siphoning off players with more attractive offers (higher bonuses, no betting limits, etc.). The inability to swiftly choke off access to such sites means the competitive playing field remains uneven. On the other hand, the court’s insistence on a proper legal basis for enforcement is reassuring to compliant operators – it underscores that regulatory action must stay within the bounds of law and due process. As one industry observer noted, aggressive enforcement without clear authority can backfire, and this ruling “draws a line in the sand that regulators must respect” (a perspective implicitly shared by the courts. In the long run, a sound legal framework is in everyone’s interest – gray-market sites can be tackled, but in a way that will hold up in court.

Unlicensed offshore operators, meanwhile, might be quietly cheering – though not too loudly. The German market, with its strict rules and taxes, has seen many offshore sites continue to serve local gamblers without authorisation. The fact that German users cannot simply be cut off by their internet provider is an obvious boon to these sites. It means German players can reach them as long as the sites find willing hosts or use easy workarounds like mirror domains. However, the celebration in those quarters is tempered by the knowledge that GGL’s campaign is far from over. Host-level disruption, payment blocking, and even potential future law changes all threaten to eventually rein in the party. Illegal operators face a landscape where doing business just got a bit easier in the short term, but potentially harder in the long term if Germany beefs up its regulatory arsenal.

Player Rights and the Censorship Debate

Beyond industry stakeholders, the ruling touches on fundamental questions of player rights and internet freedom. Digital rights advocates in Germany hailed the decision as a stand against creeping censorship. For them, forcing ISPs to block websites sets a troubling precedent – one that authoritarian regimes have eagerly used to control information. “Netzsperren sind ein großes Problem, weil sie unpräzise sind und auch den Zugang zu rechtmäßigen Informationen sperren,” (“Network blocks are a big problem, because they are imprecise and block access to lawful information as well,”) warned Joschka Selinger of the Society for Civil Rights. He noted that while European law allows some blocking, it should be an absolute last resort after all other methods fail. The courts, in scrutinising the GGL’s attempts, essentially concurred that the bar for such invasive action had not been cleared.

From the player perspective, the judgment has a dual significance. For consumer protection proponents, it’s a setback: internet blocking was seen as a way to shield vulnerable users from unregulated gambling. The GGL and allied policymakers argue that blocking illicit sites protects players from rigged games, lack of age checks, and potential fraud. Every site taken down or hidden is theoretically a win for addiction prevention and legal order. Yet, the effectiveness of blocking in truly protecting players is questionable. As the netzpolitik.org analysis pointed out, **“with a few tricks” – like a VPN or Tor browser – average users can circumvent most blocks. A block might amount to little more than a speed bump, one that technically-inclined gamblers can bypass within minutes. Meanwhile, overly broad blocks risk restricting legitimate content or communication, raising free-speech issues. The court’s insistence on careful, legal use of blocks implicitly acknowledges these trade-offs.

In Germany, many players themselves have been ambivalent. Some welcome a harder stance on illicit sites, frustrated by inconsistent standards in the market. Others, however, see blocking as paternalistic interference – arguing they should have the freedom to choose where to play, even if it’s on an offshore site, as long as they understand the risks. This ruling doesn’t “liberalize” online gambling by any stretch, but by curbing one enforcement method, it leaves German adults with a bit more autonomy (or temptation, depending on one’s view) to access the broader iGaming world. The tension between state-imposed protection and individual freedom in the gambling sphere remains an ongoing debate, and this case poured some gasoline on that fire.

Regulatory Whiplash: Germany and the EU Context

For Europe’s gambling regulators, the German saga offers a cautionary tale. Many EU countries have employed ISP blocking to police online gambling – Italy, France, Spain, Belgium, and others maintain blacklists that internet providers must enforce. In fact, Italy is an exemplar of the heavy-handed approach: its regulator blocked over 9,800 unlicensed gambling websites in 2023 alone (EGBA concern at reported size of online gambling black market in Italy - EGBA), and has tens of thousands of domains on its blacklist overall. These countries gave their regulators explicit powers (often via court orders or statutes) to direct ISP blocks, and those measures have largely withstood legal challenge. Germany, by contrast, attempted to introduce blocking through a patchwork treaty reference to an older internet law, and encountered a judicial brick wall. The lesson? Clarity is key. If governments want to censor the internet in the name of gambling regulation, they must say so in no uncertain terms – and be prepared to justify it under constitutional and EU-law scrutiny.

The ruling may also influence how the EU Digital Services Act (DSA) framework interacts with national gambling laws. Under the DSA, enforcement against illegal online content must balance fundamental rights and follow due process. Germany’s failed ISP blocking gambit, struck down in part because it tried to sidestep provider protections, underscores that ad-hoc national measures can conflict with broader European principles. We might see other jurisdictions re-examining their own enforcement protocols: Are they proportionate? Do they target the right actors (the content host vs. the conduit)? Could they survive a court challenge on similar grounds? For instance, the Netherlands and the UK have so far avoided general ISP blocking for gambling, focusing on other tools – perhaps wisely, given the German experience.

Globally, the case highlights a broader dynamic: the push-and-pull between decentralisation and control on the internet. Online gambling is inherently transnational and decentralised – a website hosted in Curaçao can serve a bettor in Munich at the click of a button. Regulators, tied to national jurisdictions, reach for any lever they can (ISPs, payment providers, advertising channels) to impose local rules on that borderless realm. When one lever (like ISP blocking) is knocked out of their hands by the courts, the regulatory playbook shifts to others. Some countries resort to payment interdictions, others to criminal charges, and some – like China – to near-total internet firewalls. Germany’s more nuanced legal environment means it must iterate carefully: block at the source (hosts), not the pipe (ISPs), or find a legislative fix.

What’s Next? Compliance, Adaptation, and Possible Law Changes

German regulators are not sitting idle. Even before the court’s final word, the GGL had been “working on amendments to strengthen Germany’s gambling enforcement framework”. The states that form the GGL’s consortium have already drafted updates to the State Treaty that would explicitly broaden blocking powers. Among the likely changes are:

Clarifying ISP obligations – making it unmistakable that access providers can be subject to blocking orders (potentially eliminating the “responsibility” loophole).
Streamlining procedures – allowing the GGL to skip directly to intermediaries without first exhausting action against the gambling site operators themselves, much as they do with payment blocking. This would save time when dealing with fly-by-night offshore entities.
Including advertising platforms – the GGL has signaled it wants powers to block “advertising for illegal gambling” as well, closing a gap where unlicensed sites lure German users via online ads and affiliates.
Ensuring due process – to withstand future court scrutiny, any new blocking regime will need clear safeguards (e.g. judicial review or time limits) to prevent abuse and demonstrate necessity and proportionality.

For gambling operators, especially those eyeing the German market, the takeaway is to stay nimble. Compliance with local regulations remains the only long-term safe harbor. If you’re a licensed operator, keep supporting efforts to eliminate the black market, but brace for the slow pace of reform – the playing field may not tilt in your favour overnight. If you’re operating without a German license, beware of complacency: the current enforcement gap could narrow quickly if new laws pass. Moreover, the GGL’s determination means alternative enforcement (like payment blocking or direct action against your hosting/cloud providers) will continue. The ruling is not a free pass to target German players with impunity; it’s a temporary tactical win that could spur an even more aggressive regulatory response in new forms.

European and Global Ripple Effects

The implications of Germany’s decision are being felt in boardrooms and regulatory agencies worldwide. In Europe’s patchwork of gambling laws, it’s rare for a court to so starkly limit a regulator’s power. This precedent could embolden legal challenges in other countries: an operator hit with a blocking order in Country X might cite the German case to argue that their own regulators overstepped or violated a similar liability safe harbour. While each jurisdiction has unique laws, the underlying tension – free internet vs. controlled market – is universal. European courts, including the European Court of Justice, have historically allowed ISP blocks for illegal gambling when done under clear legal authority (as in Italy or Denmark). But they also insist on proportionality; overly broad blocking can violate users’ rights to information. Germany’s approach was struck down largely for technical legal reasons, yet it also resonates with the idea that you don’t break the internet lightly. Other EU regulators may now double-check that their “nuclear options” are fail-safe.

On a global scale, the German ruling adds to the narrative of how liberal democracies handle internet governance. Authoritarian regimes often cite Western website blocking (for gambling, copyright, etc.) as justification for their own extensive censorship. By ruling against the gambling blocks, German courts drew a line, reinforcing democratic values that any restriction on the open web must have strict legal grounding and oversight. It’s a reminder that even in pursuit of legitimate aims (like consumer protection and law enforcement), the cure shouldn’t become worse than the disease.

Meanwhile, innovations in decentralisation – from blockchain-based gambling platforms to decentralised DNS – loom on the horizon of the iGaming industry. The more regulators try to block and filter, the more likely operators are to explore truly distributed platforms that are resistant by design to takedown. Cryptocurrencies already enable payments beyond government control; future gambling sites might live on peer-to-peer networks that are incredibly hard to block. This German case is, in a way, a snapshot in time of the enforcement struggle in Web 2.0. Web 3.0 may render some of these battles obsolete, as jurisdictional enforcement gives way to new forms of self-regulation, reputation systems, or sadly, a persistent cat-and-mouse in a different arena.

Takeaways for Gambling Operators

Germany’s highest administrative court has upheld the principle that you can’t use a bad law to do a good thing – at least not when it comes to ordering ISP blocks of gambling sites. The ruling underscores the need for robust legal frameworks in regulating online gambling, and it carries several lessons for operators and regulators alike. Here are the key points gambling operators should digest going forward:

Germany’s Enforcement is Adapting, Not Retreating: While ISPs in Germany won’t be knocking your site offline, the GGL is aggressively pursuing host-level blocks and payment disruptions. Illegal operators remain under pressure. Don’t assume the German market is a free-for-all simply because one enforcement avenue closed.
Compliance Remains King: If you operate (or plan to operate) in Germany, consider the writing on the wall. The State Treaty may soon be amended to empower more sweeping action. Aligning with licensing and compliance now could save headaches later. Regulators globally are watching and learning – staying on the right side of the law is a long-term investment in market access.
Licensed Operators Must Continue to Push for Fair Play: The court’s decision is a setback for leveling the playing field, but it also provides a clearer path for reform. Engage with regulators and industry bodies to support targeted, legally sound measures against black-market competitors. Effective enforcement can happen without trampling rights, and the industry’s voice is crucial in crafting those solutions.
Player Trust and Choice at Stake: Publicly, emphasise your commitment to player protection under the licensed regime. The existence of a black market thrives on player disillusionment or ignorance. Use this moment to educate players on the risks of unlicensed sites (lack of recourse, no self-exclusion, etc.) and highlight the safeguards you offer. In the end, earning player loyalty is more effective than any ISP blockade.
Global Impact – Be Ready for a Shifting Landscape: Laws and enforcement practices are in flux worldwide. What happened in Germany could foreshadow legal challenges elsewhere or inspire tougher regulations to avoid a similar outcome. Stay informed on jurisdictional developments in your key markets. From Europe to Asia to the Americas, the balance between internet freedom and gambling regulation is evolving – and your business strategy should evolve with it.

The German court’s ruling is a landmark moment in iGaming regulation – one that champions legal rigor over expedient enforcement. For gambling operators, it’s both a relief and a warning. The digital walls to keep out unlicensed gambling just got a little lower in one country, but the regulatory determination to police the market is only growing taller. Navigating this dynamic requires sharp legal awareness, a commitment to compliance, and an eye on the bigger picture: an industry that must cooperate with regulators to thrive, without sacrificing the openness and innovation that make online gambling a truly global game.