Conditions against multiple simultaneous play: player protection and administrative powers strengthened

Gambling law and gaming hall law: Decision of the Administrative Court Düsseldorf (VG Düsseldorf) on conditions against multiple simultaneous play

Introduction

The operation of gaming halls has been subject to increasing regulation for years – not only for reasons of youth and player protection, but also for the prevention of gambling addiction. The centrepiece of this regulation is the State Gambling Treaty 2021 (GlüStV 2021) and the North Rhine-Westphalian implementing law (AG GlüStV NRW). Both normative complexes grant the authorities far-reaching powers to ensure the proper operation of a gaming hall. This expressly includes subsequent conditions that are intended to react preventatively to risk situations.

One such condition – namely the obligation of the gaming hall supervisory authority to ensure that no player operates more than one gaming machine simultaneously – was the subject of the current decision of the Administrative Court Düsseldorf of 20.11.2025 (16 L 3716/25). The decision is an important signal for operators, authorities and advisers in gambling law.

What was at issue: Authority seeks to prevent multiple simultaneous play – operator objects

The operator of a gaming hall challenged a subsequent condition imposed by the administrative authority in expedited proceedings. This obliged the supervisory personnel to ensure that each player uses only a single gaming machine. The background was official inspections in several gaming halls in the city area, during which multiple simultaneous play had been detected – a risk that, in the view of the authority, has immediate implications for player protection and addiction prevention.

The operator argued inter alia:

• § 6 Abs. 5 SpielV regulates the prevention of multiple simultaneous play exhaustively – and is directed at the device operator, not at the gaming hall operator.
• A subsequent condition without specific breaches in the operator's own business would be disproportionate.
• The wording is uncertain and not clearly implementable for supervisory personnel.

The Administrative Court Düsseldorf rejected the application for interim relief in full.

Legal considerations: Far-reaching discretionary powers of the authority confirmed

Authority may impose subsequent conditions purely for preventative purposes

The court makes clear: No specific breaches of duty by the affected operator are required for subsequent conditions.

• 16 Abs. 2 Satz 5 AG GlüStV NRW and § 24 Abs. 2 Satz 3 GlüStV 2021 expressly allow permits to be provided with conditions at any time – even without an occasion in the individual case. The authority may simply respond to general risk situations.

No blocking effect by § 6 Abs. 5 SpielV

The court makes abundantly clear:

• § 6 Abs. 5 SpielV obligates exclusively the device operator, not the gaming hall operator.
• State-level gaming hall regulation (AG GlüStV NRW) has completely replaced the former § 33i GewO.
• Therefore, the Gaming Ordinance (SpielV) is not an exhaustive regulation and does not prevent administrative conditions.

This makes clear: Even if operator and proprietor functions coincide in one person, the state-level licensing authority retains the authority to impose further player protection conditions.

Multiple simultaneous play is a real risk – and incompatible with the GlüStV

The court emphasizes the significant player protection problems of multiple simultaneous play:

• Circumvention of the loss and gain limits of § 13 SpielV
• Circumvention of statutorily prescribed play breaks
• Increased risk of addiction

This threatens an operation that does not effectively prevent multiple simultaneous play to meet the grounds for refusal in § 24 Abs. 2 GlüStV 2021. The condition thus directly serves to secure the statutory licensing requirements.

Condition is suitable, necessary and proportionate

The court considers the measure to be:

• suitable, because supervisory personnel can prevent multiple simultaneous use through close monitoring,
• necessary, because the requirements of § 6 Abs. 5 SpielV alone are insufficient (e.g. delayed log-out function),
• appropriate, since it constitutes only a minor interference with freedom of occupation.

The formulation "to ensure" is sufficiently determinate

The term is certainly open to interpretation, but is clear from explanation and context:

A breach occurs only when the supervisory authority fails to take action despite observable multiple simultaneous play does not intervene.

Thus the regulatory content is unambiguous for trained supervisory personnel.

Practice Recommendation: What Arcade Hall Operators Should Do Now

The decision demonstrates:

Authorities can order far-reaching player protection measures even without concrete violations – and these are confirmed by the courts.

Operators should therefore:

• update internal instructions to prevent multiple play,
• provide intensive training for supervisory personnel,
• document control processes (control rounds, log-out checks),
• identify and close technical and organisational weaknesses.

Important: Breaches of corresponding requirements can be subject to fines (§ 23 AG GlüStV NRW) and in the worst case jeopardise the entire arcade hall licence.

Legal Assistance

If you have received an administrative order or are already in dispute with the licensing authority, you should seek specialist legal advice at an early stage. As a law firm specialising in administrative law, the experts of AVANTCORE Rechtsanwälte in Stuttgart will support you with:

• the legal assessment of requirements,
• the preparation of legally compliant operating and control concepts,
• objection and legal proceedings,
• strategic communication with the supervisory authority.

Further articles on the subject of Gaming Law can be found here:

Arcade Hall Law: No Toleration for Arcade Halls – the Requirements are Strict

Gaming Law Licence for Stationary Betting Intermediary Services

The installation of gaming machines in a leisure centre is prohibited – "bowling alley remains a sports hall"