Tipico, Germany’s most prominent betting operator, stands at a defining moment in its twenty-year rise from a Karlsruhe bookmaker to a multinational giant. While it continues to lead retail and online sports betting across the DACH region, a wave of refund litigation, rising EU scrutiny, and structural financial questions have brought growing legal scrutiny and financial speculation to its doorstep.
However, Tipico insists the real pressure lies with litigation funders, many of whom are struggling to sustain claims they are increasingly failing to win. Yet Tipico remains confident in its compliance posture, expansion into Austria, and its legal outlook as the European Court of Justice (ECJ) prepares to rule on pivotal cross-border claims.
SiGMA News spoke exclusively to Matthias Folkmann, Head of Corporate Communications at Tipico, who offered detailed insight into the company’s legal stance, regulatory approach, and how it is navigating the challenges posed by refund claims, media scrutiny, and developing European law.
The ECJ referral and refund lawsuit risk
The Bundesgerichtshof (BGH), Germany’s Federal Court of Justice, referred key questions to the ECJ in 2024 over whether losses incurred by players during the 2010s, when Tipico operated without a German licence, can be reclaimed retroactively. Tipico argues that its Maltese licence was valid under EU law during a period of legal uncertainty in Germany, citing past ECJ rulings.
In response, Matthias Folkmann said: “We are very confident that the Court of Justice of the European Union will follow its previous rulings, like the case Ince in 2016, and eventually decide this matter in our favour.”
Multiple such refund lawsuits are currently working through German and Austrian courts. Echoes of early rulings ring in the players’ favour, yet few have settled, many trapped in the ECJ’s holding pattern. Tipico is advancing its position through higher courts, holding that the right to provide services across EU borders should ultimately carry legal weight.
The Tipico-linked ECJ referral now unfolds alongside another high-profile case, . On paper, these cases don’t intertwine. Yet both pry at the same fragile seam: a Europe divided between national fences and Malta’s digital frontier.
A ruling against Malta or its operators could weaken the MGA’s long-held authority and trigger a domino effect of refund claims across EU courts. C-440 might not wear Tipico’s name, but it walks the same tightrope, and the Advocate General’s opinion could hint at which way the European wind is blowing.
Bill 55 and the Malta firewall
Much of Tipico’s risk management strategy finds its roots in Malta, where its key subsidiaries remain headquartered. Bill 55, passed by Malta in 2023, prevents the enforcement of foreign judgments against gaming companies if they contradict Malta’s public policy.
Tipico, however, distances itself from relying on the legislation. “Our legal point of view does not refer to Bill 55. That’s why Bill 55 has not become relevant for Tipico until today, as we have never invoked Bill 55,” explained Folkmann.
Nevertheless, the company acknowledged the context. Folkmann says, “This bill relates exclusively to the period prior to the currently applicable gambling regulation and, therefore, has no relevance whatsoever to the current regulations in Germany. During the period in question, Germany violated EU law for many years.”
A ruling from the ECJ on the compatibility of Bill 55 with EU civil procedure rules is expected within the next year. When asked whether any Tipico subsidiary, even if not the group itself, had ever explored Bill 55 as a legal safeguard, Folkmann replied, “No. Neither the Group nor any entity.”
Regulatory claims and Tipico’s response
In March 2025, ARD and Die ZEIT claimed that a student was able to increase his monthly deposit limit at Tipico to €10,000 despite earning just €1,000. The implication was that Tipico was breaching Germany’s strict affordability requirements under the State Treaty on Gambling (GlüStV 2021).
Tipico challenged the narrative directly, pointing out that the case presented lacked corroborating evidence and had never been independently verified. “We would be happy to investigate this case thoroughly. If you provide us with the relevant details, we can comment on why this limit increase was approved,” Tipico replied to ARD. No one reportedly shared further information.
Expanding on this, Folkmann told SiGMA News: “Limits are designed to protect players in cases where they cannot make conscious decisions. But if customers are fully aware of their actions and hold a reliable Schufa Score, it’s difficult to justify why they should be prevented from increasing their limit.”
Folkmann added: “Customers can choose from a number of methods. The Schufa-G query is one of them. Once higher limits are applied, extended precautionary monitoring measures also apply. The GGL defines some of them, but we also have internal sophisticated monitoring mechanisms to detect problem gambling, fraud, and money laundering.”
He also defended Schufa-G as a standard tool: “Almost all financial service providers are firmly convinced that Schufa scores are by far the best method available on the market to assess a customer’s financial standing.”
Structural shielding or smart segmentation?
Tipico’s structure includes several Malta-based companies named after German cities, such as Tipico Karlsruhe Ltd and Tipico Frankfurt Ltd, each with distinct regulatory and operational responsibilities. The group says this aligns with regulatory best practices and is fully transparent. “The GGL whitelist publicly displays all licensed entities and their websites. Further to that, every player who registers with our offers must agree beforehand to our T&CS, where the respective entity is included, too,” Tipico stated.
Critics might call it a maze of Maltese mirrors, confusing players about which entity they are contracting with, but Tipico says this isn’t an issue. “Running different entities for individual product offerings is absolutely common, and we don’t think this is over confusing,” said Folkmann.
Strategic expansion and the Admiral acquisition
In January 2025, Tipico announced its intent to acquire Admiral Sportwetten GmbH, the Austrian sports betting and retail slots division of Novomatic. Still pending regulatory approval, the deal brings over 200 betting shops under Tipico’s banner and sharpens its grip on the German-speaking market.
CEO Axel Hefer described it as “a strategic move to strengthen our market leadership in the German-speaking region and prepare for future regulatory modernisation in Austria.”
For now, Tipico is keeping its Admiral cards close to its chest. “As closing has not yet taken place, we cannot provide any further information beyond the official statement at this time,” Folkmann said. This suggests the real playbook may unfold post-merger.
Financial foundations and private equity stability
Tipico is majority owned by CVC Capital Partners, which has financed the company through successive debt tranches via its Luxembourg holding firm, Tackle S.a.r.l. Reports suggest cumulative debt may exceed €1.8 billion, largely used to fund dividends. Tipico confirms that it complies with IFRS and that independent auditors audit its accounts.
When asked if Tipico models worst-case refund scenarios or sets aside provisions, Folkmann responded: “We adhere to IFRS accounting standards, and auditors independently audit our annual financial statements.”
Pressed on whether Tipico runs ‘what if’ simulations for large-scale refund risks, Folkmann was politely firm: “Please understand that we do not comment publicly on internal business processes.” That’s fine, but silence doesn’t mean stillness in a volatile market. It just means the real work’s probably happening where you can’t see it.
Reputational resilience and regulatory trust
As legal threats loom, Tipico continues emphasising its position as a licensed, regulated, and consumer-focused operator. The launch of its “Trusted Partner” initiative, certifying exclusive B2B game providers with a strong focus on compliance, its partnership with Zeal, and investments in retail and tech infrastructure, suggests a company actively trying to future-proof itself.
When asked whether it faces trust issues as a Malta-based operator, Folkmann said: “We don’t see that Tipico is perceived as a shielded operator but rather as a reliable operator with a strong local market presence in Germany and Austria.”
All eyes on the Advocate
European legal interpretations and German politics will shape Tipico’s near future. Still, few believe the ECJ would contradict its own former decision in the Ince case (C-336/14) and undermine two decades of regulatory precedent, throw intra-EU service rights into disarray, and effectively neuter Malta’s role as a recognised hub.
Tipico knows this, and, for now, it appears legally armed, financially sound, and reputationally aware.
