LOSCHELDER successful for the Joint Gambling Authority of the Federal States (GGL) at the Federal Administrative Court

Zum aktuellen Menüpunkt Zur Hauptnavigation

14.02.25

LOSCHELDER successful for the Joint Gambling Authority of the Federal States (GGL) at the Federal Administrative Court

LOSCHELDER has obtained a landmark ruling for the GGL on so-called image or umbrella brand advertising in the area of gambling advertising (BVerwG 8 C 2.24 - judgment of February 12, 2025).

The provider of a social lottery had used its logo as an imprint on information and educational materials as part of its statutory, non-profit activity. The GGL objected to this as inadmissible advertising within the meaning of Section 5 GlüStV. The BVerwG supported the opinion of the GGL and stated that advertising within the meaning of the State Treaty on Gambling exists if the specific action, from the perspective of an average observer, at least also pursues the goal of promoting the sale of the gambling offer. The plaintiff's logo stands for both its charitable activity and its lottery offer. If it is printed on the title page of its information and educational materials, this also improves the image of its lottery and is therefore advertising.

The plaintiff lottery provider challenged several ancillary provisions of its gaming license that were relevant for advertising. In addition to the question of whether and when umbrella brand advertising constitutes advertising within the meaning of Section 5 GlüStV, the BVerwG also had to clarify whether the plaintiff could be required, as an ancillary provision of its license, to contractually oblige its advertising service providers to comply with the legal requirements for gambling advertising (obligation to pass on). The two lower courts (VG Mainz, VG 1 K 359/22.MZ - judgment of May 11, 2023 and OVG Koblenz, OVG 6 A 10927/23.OVG - judgment of March 19, 2024) had denied this. The judges in Leipzig took a different view: the obligation to pass on the information increases the probability that the advertising restrictions, which serve to prevent addiction and protect minors, will be complied with. The interference with the rights of the plaintiff was appropriate to achieve this purpose.

Representing GGL in the proceedings: Prof. Dr. Markus Ruttig (with the assistance of Dr. Martin Pagenkopf, CBH)

← News / all

News /2025

News /
2025