16.02.2018
0

ZfWG: VG München: Unionsrechtswidriges Lotteriemonopol – Zeit zum Umdenken!

Dr Bernd Berberich, Hambach & Hambach, published in ZfWG01/2018, p. 61 ff. Summary of the German article “VG München: Unionsrechtswidriges Lotteriemonopol – Zeit zum Umdenken!” The systematically stimulating advertising by the government-owned lottery companies shows that the state lottery monopoly is unlawful. This relates in particular to the internet as a sales channel. Due to this incoherence,…

16.02.2018
0

ZfWG: Glücksspielteilnahmebedingungen im Mobile- und App-Commerce

Robert Schippel LL.M., Hambach & Hambach Law Firm, published in ZfWG 1/2018, p. 21 f. Summary of the German article “Glücksspielteilnahmebedingungen im Mobile- und App-Commerce” Terms and Conditions are an important part of mobile and app based gambling offers. Under the 2011 EU Consumer Rights Directive (2011/83/EU) companies are required to give information before a consumer buys services…

12.02.2018
0

GIQ: European data protection regulations

Published in Gaming Intelligence Quarterly – GIQ Q4 p.35 Dr Wulf Hambach and Dr Stefanie Fuchs from Hambach & Hambach explain the impact of the new European General Data Protection Regulation IN 2015, AFTER years of back-and-forth negotiations, the European Commission reached an agreement on the text of the new European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), replacing the out-of-date Data…

01.11.2017
0

ZfWG: Gaming? Gambling? Der Handel mit virtuellen Gütern als glücksspielrechtliche Herausforderung?

Robert Schippel, published in ZfWG 6/2017, p. 481 f. I. Einleitung In der „taz“ vom 16.8.2016 wurde unter der Überschrift „Von Gaming zum Gambling?“ der teilweise exzessive Handel mit virtuellen Gegenständen in Computerspielen zum Nachteil der Spieler problematisiert. Zum einen am Beispiel eines früheren Spielers, der – mit 14 Jahren – in den Handel mit virtuellen Gegenständen in Online-Games verstrickt worden…

27.10.2017
0

ZfWG: Sportwettbetrug und Manipulation von berufssportlichen Wettbewerben

Summary On April 11, 2017, the German legislator introduced section 265c-265e of the German Criminal Code (StGB). Section 265c now specifically penalizes betting fraud, i.e. an agreement to manipulate a sporting competition on which bets have been placed. Moreover, section 265d of the German Criminal Code outlaws the manipulation of professional sporting events on the federal and international  level even if there…

27.06.2017
2

Casino & Gaming International: New eGaming Regulation in Germany

By Dr. Wulf Hambach and Dr. Stefanie Fuchs, published in ‘Casino & Gaming International’ magazine, Issue 29 (2017 Q2) – www.cgimagazine.com The 2nd Inter-State Treaty amending the Inter-State Treaty on Gambling (“ISTG 18”) is the next chapter in a history of failed attempts to regulate the growing gambling market in Germany. Instead of a complete overhaul of the…

09.06.2017
1

iGamingBusiness.com: DFS regulation in the US: how it translates for German market

By Dr. Wulf Hambach, Hambach & Hambach Law Firm, published on iGamingBusiness.com US states are gradually regulating Daily Fantasy Sports (DFS), but how will their decisions and clarifications impact the German market when DFS operators enter? Wulf Hambach, partner at Hambach & Hambach law firm, Germany, examines the potential outcomes. Fantasy Sports has been extremely…

13.03.2017
2

WOGLR: Germany: Schleswig-Holstein ready for change in gambling policy

Published by Dr. Wulf Hambach in WOGLR Volume 8  issue 11 The northern German State of Schleswig-Holstein has recently announced it plans to abandon Germany’s Interstate Treaty on Gambling, which bans online gambling nationwide. Dr. Wulf Hambach, a Partner at Hambach & Hambach, examines the possible effect of the state’s move and discusses the current…

28.02.2017
0

ZfWG: Ausnutzen von Softwarefehler straffrei? – der Gesetzgeber ist gefragt!

By Claus Hambach, LL.M. and Dr Bernd Berberich Summary: In view of a specific interpretation in the context of fraud, it is convincing to assume that players/consumers are not subject to criminal iability on account of computer fraud if they merely exploit software errors that have become publicly known. However, it does not seem reasonable to…