A federal court decision has ruled in favour of the German gambling regulator’s (GGL) stance against the inclusion of a lottery provider’s logo in educational material.
The Federal Administrative Court (BVerwG) upheld GGL’s appeal in a case where a social lottery plaintiff argued that its use of branding across a series of informational material was not in breach of the State Treaty of Gambling.
In detail, the plaintiff – a “nationally known social lottery” – issued a series of educational materials intended for vulnerable target groups, informing them of its work around the support of people with disabilities through donations made from lottery proceeds.
The social lottery provider’s branding was imprinted into the documents, with the plaintiff suggesting that this does not constitute advertising as no reference was made to its gambling offer beyond the logo itself.
The argument further stated that the plaintiff – and other third parties commissioned to distribute the materials – had no legal obligation to adhere to the gambling advertising code of conduct.
After the GGL issued the initial warning, the plaintiff took the case to the Administrative Court of Mainz, which upheld the social lottery provider’s appeal in its proceedings.
Then, the defendant (GGL) filed another appeal, this time with the Higher Administrative Court of Koblenz. This resulted in a partial overruling of the first court’s judgement, this time in favour of the regulator.
Both parties in the case expressed dissatisfaction with the decision, each filing a third and final appeal that was presented to the Federal Administrative Court in Leipzig, where the GGL’s legal argument was deemed correct and the plaintiff’s appeal was rejected.
A statement by the Court read: “Because the logo is known to stand for the lottery as well as for the promotion of inclusion, it also improves the image of the lottery and motivates the average viewer to promote the plaintiff’s charitable activities through lottery participation.
“The plaintiff’s logo stands for both his charitable activity and his lottery offer. If it is printed on the title page of his information and educational materials, this also improves the image of his lottery.
“At the same time, it motivates us to support the charitable activities, which are known to be financed mainly by lottery revenues.”
BVerwG also noted that moving forward it expects third parties to comply with the relevant advertising restrictions preventing gambling harm, and that it views the ‘interference with the rights of the plaintiff’ as reasonable when pursuing compliance with the legal framework.