Gaming law authorization for stationary sports betting intermediary offices

The Administrative Court of Düsseldorf (VG Düsseldorf) confirmed with its judgment of 02.06.2025 – 16 K 4941/22 the North Rhine-Westphalian regulatory practice regarding intermediary authorization in the sports betting sector.

Legal Foundations of Sports Betting Intermediary Office Authorization

The operation and intermediation of sports betting in Germany is subject to strict statutory regulation. The basis is the Glücksspielstaatsvertrag 2021 (GlüStV 2021), which in conjunction with the respective state laws – here the Ausführungsgesetz zum GlüStV NRW (AG GlüStV NRW) – sets comprehensive requirements for operators.

For stationary sports betting intermediary offices, the following applies:

• Both the operator (i.e. the holder of the sports betting concession) and the betting intermediary (on-site betting agent) require special gaming law authorization (§ 13 Abs. 1 AG GlüStV NRW).
• This authorization must necessarily be applied for by the operator (§ 13 Abs. 2 Satz 2 AG GlüStV NRW).
• Furthermore, pursuant to § 13 Abs. 3 AG GlüStV NRW, the intermediation of sports betting as a secondary business is inadmissible – it may only be conducted as a primary business.

The objective of these regulations is in particular the combating of gambling addiction, the protection of minors, and an orderly market structure.

What was the dispute about?

The claimant is a company resident in Malta holding a nationwide concession for the operation of sports betting. It is entered in the so-called whitelist of the GlüStV 2021 and is therefore entitled to offer both online sports betting and stationary services.

In April 2022, the claimant applied to the District Government (Bezirksregierung) for gaming law authorization to operate a specific stationary sports betting intermediary office in North Rhine-Westphalia. This was to be operated by a German limited liability company as the betting intermediary. The application was made – in accordance with the statutory requirements – by the claimant as the operator.

By decision of 7 June 2022, the District Government (Bezirksregierung) granted both the claimant and the designated intermediary authorization to operate the sports betting intermediary office. The decision contained, inter alia, the following provisions:

• Item I.1: The claimant was permitted to have sports betting "intermediated as a primary business".
• Item II.6: The claimant was obliged to notify any structural or spatial changes to the sports betting intermediary office in writing at least two weeks before the start of the renovation.

Against these two provisions, the claimant brought an action. It took the position that:

• the District Government (Bezirksregierung) lacked jurisdiction, because authorization should have been issued centrally in a uniform inter-state procedure;
• the wording "to have intermediated" was not provided for by statute and the claimant as operator should not have been the addressee of this authorization;
• the secondary business prohibition was unconstitutional and contrary to EU law because it resulted in de facto discrimination of private operators against state ones;
• the notification requirement for structural changes was unreasonable because the operator was seated abroad and structural measures could realistically only be implemented by the local intermediary.

Furthermore, the claimant declared the dispute regarding cost allocation (Item I.5 of the decision) to be settled, as this point had already been repealed during the administrative proceedings.

Decision of the Administrative Court of Düsseldorf (VG Düsseldorf): Dismissal of the claim in the main proceedings

The Administrative Court of Düsseldorf (VG Düsseldorf) thoroughly examined the claim and dismissed it entirely. The court's reasoning can be summarized in four central areas of examination:

a) Jurisdiction of the District Government (Bezirksregierung) – no uniform inter-state authorization required

The claimant had contended that authorization should have been issued by the central gaming authority of the states (GGL). However, the court clarified that the so-called "uniform inter-state procedure" pursuant to § 9a GlüStV 2021 applies exclusively to certain authorizations – such as online offerings – but not to the stationary intermediation of sports betting. Authorization for stationary sports betting intermediary offices is governed by state law and in North Rhine-Westphalia is expressly the responsibility of the District Governments (Bezirksregierungen) pursuant to § 19 Abs. 3 Nr. 3 AG GlüStV NRW.

b) Double authorization requirement – operator and intermediary are equally addressees

The claimant disputed that it as operator, in addition to the nationwide concession, would require a specific authorization for the stationary intermediary office. The court gave this a clear rejection:

• § 13 Abs. 1 AG GlüStV NRW expressly requires an additional authorization for each individual stationary intermediary office.
• This authorization is cumulatively to be granted to both the operator and the intermediary (§ 13 Abs. 2 Satz 1 AG GlüStV NRW).
• Only the operator may be the applicant (§ 13 Abs. 2 Satz 2 AG GlüStV NRW).

The reason: the intermediary office is legally and economically integrated into the distribution organization of the operator (§ 3 Abs. 6 GlüStV 2021). Therefore, the operator also bears shared responsibility for its operation. This design serves for administrative control and is permissible both under constitutional law and EU law.

c) Primary business requirement and secondary business prohibition – coherent, suitable, necessary

The central legal issue in dispute was the statutory prohibition of sports betting intermediation as a secondary business (§ 13 Abs. 3 AG GlüStV NRW). The claimant had argued that it was:

• disproportionate,
• discriminatory against state operators,
• inconsistent with other gaming regulations,
• and contrary to EU law.

The Administrative Court of Düsseldorf (VG Düsseldorf) rejected these objections. The provision pursued the legitimate aim of not making gambling "omnipresent" in everyday life and of restricting it for addiction prevention purposes. The primary business requirement was suitable and necessary to spatially and substantively control the intermediation of sports betting. In particular, it was not objectionable under constitutional or EU law that private operators are bound by stricter requirements than state entities – as long as the overall concept is coherent.

The alleged contradictions with other forms of gambling (e.g. gaming machines in public houses, horse racing betting, state lotteries) were rejected by the court with reference to different risk situations and regulatory contexts.

d) Ancillary provision regarding notification requirement for renovations – permissible and proportionate

The claimant also criticized the condition in Item II.6 of the decision, according to which it as operator was required to notify any spatial changes to the sports betting intermediary office two weeks in advance.

The court found as follows:

• The obligation served to ensure compliance with the requirements regarding equipment, visibility and spatial division (§ 5 AnVerVO NRW).
• It was appropriately directed at the operator, since it had filed the application and remains responsible – regardless of whether the renovation is factually carried out by the intermediary.
• The wording was sufficiently definite; terms such as "structural change", "equipment" or "division" were adequately explained by the decision's reasoning.

Even the plaintiff's place of residence abroad does not exempt it from this obligation. An excessive burden does not exist.

Conclusion: Clear line of the administration confirmed

With this decision, the VG Düsseldorf makes clear: The North Rhine-Westphalian regulation on betting mediation permits in the sports betting sector is compatible with both national and European law. Neither an impermissible burden on the foreign operator nor unlawful unequal treatment compared to state providers exists. The detailed requirements for betting mediation offices – including notification and principal business obligation – serve to ensure coherent, addiction-preventive gambling regulation.

Recommendation:

Operators and organisers of stationary sports betting offices should obtain advice at an early stage from a specialist lawyer – in particular in the case of cross-border group structures. The legal requirements are complex and are consistently enforced by the gambling supervisory authority. AVANTCORE Rechtsanwälte in Stuttgart supports you in legally compliant planning, application procedures and judicial enforcement of your rights in gambling law.