Web blocks vs. gambling: Serious setback for the supervisory authority GGL

The controversy over web blocking is not abating. The federal states are currently ratifying the controversial reform of the Interstate Treaty on Gambling in a hurry to grant the Joint Gambling Authority of the States (GGL) far-reaching powers for IP blocking. However, administrative courts are simultaneously removing the legal basis for the supervisory authority. Continue after ad The Administrative Court (VG) Halle, in several decisions available to heise online, has determined that the GGL is currently not permitted to issue orders based on the permit requirement due to its own omissions. With decisions dated August 6 (Ref.: 7 B 491/25 HAL and Ref.: 7 B 492/25 HAL) and August 24, 2026 (Ref.: 7 B 62/26 HAL), the court stopped the authority's directives. In the case of August 24, the GGL attempted to compel Google to block search results for two offerings for users in Germany. The chamber declared the supervisory norm from Paragraph 9 of the Interstate Treaty on Gambling (GlüStV) of 2021 inapplicable. The reason: The GGL has a structural enforcement deficit that violates EU law and administrative incoherence, as it has systematically tolerated an illegal expansion of offerings in the regulated market. Setback in court: Halle slows down the GGL The cause of the legal reprimand is the practice regarding deposit limits in the legally operated market. To protect against gambling addiction, the Interstate Treaty on Gambling generally limits deposits to 1000 euros per month. Increases require proof of economic solvency through tax assessments or bank statements. In practice, however, the GGL has allowed a simple Schufa credit check across the board since 2023. This score merely measures default probabilities but says nothing about income or assets. As the Lüneburg District Court ruled in 2024, financially weak players could thus set deposit limits of up to 10,000 euros. Reports from Bremen of July 2024 and Lower Saxony of April 2025 also criticized the inadequacy of the procedure. Although the GGL has been aware of the deficiencies since early 2024 at the latest, it has maintained the practice. It adopted the guidelines unchanged for 2026 and, in another proceeding (Ref.: 7 A 103/26 HAL) in May, offered the settlement text that recognizes the Schufa query as proof of assets. The VG Halle sees this as a deliberate divergence between administrative practice and guidelines. Furthermore, on July 1, the GGL increased the maximum stake per game from one to up to five euros. It cited inflation for this, which the court assessed with an incredulous '?!' as a further undermining of player protection. Continue after ad Weakened player protection and controversial practice According to the case law of the European Court of Justice (ECJ), a state may only restrict market access for foreign providers if it pursues its protective goals coherently and systematically. If the authority itself undermines these goals, it may no longer sanction violations. This deprives the GGL of its legal basis for action and refutes the earlier assumptions of the Higher Administrative Court of Saxony-Anhalt of December 2024. In addition, the Hamburg Higher Administrative Court submitted in May fundamental questions to the ECJ regarding the compatibility of the lottery monopoly with European competition rules (Ref.: 4 Bf 26/25). Unfazed, the federal states are expanding the powers. The amended treaty is a reaction to defeats of the GGL before the Higher Administrative Court of Rhineland-Palatinate in Koblenz and the Federal Administrative Court. In the future, responsibility will be waived in order to also oblige access providers as mere conduits for IP blocking. Opponents fear over-blocking of legitimate content here. The new Paragraph 27h GlüStV also declares the meetings of the GGL administrative board to be confidential. This paints a disastrous picture, criticizes Nik Sarafi, who is involved in the proceedings as a lawyer: State parliaments are granting the GGL new powers for web blocking, and its governing body is evading public scrutiny. At the same time, courts are attesting that the authority is systematically undermining legal player protection. The blocking thus threatens to become a means of shielding an inadequately supervised market from competition. (dahe)