Claims Related to Participation in a Gambling Game

There are situations in which a player disputes the value of their winnings in a gambling game. How should they proceed in such a case?

The first step should be to initiate a complaint procedure. Every entity organizing gambling games should have a procedure for handling complaints described in its regulations. According to the Regulation of the Minister of Finance of January 2, 2019, on the procedure for submitting claims by participants of gambling games, a claim must be submitted in writing or via electronic communication. It should include:

• the full name and residential address of the gambling participant,

• the date and place of the incident to which the claim relates,

• the type of game and the content of the demand.

If the claim is submitted electronically, the participant must also provide an email address for communication.

If the player cannot reach an agreement with the gambling operator, they may initiate proceedings before the competent common court. It should be noted that filing a complaint is not a prerequisite for going to court. It is possible to go directly to a common court (although resolving the dispute amicably is advisable).

The statute of limitations for claims related to participation in a gambling game is specified in Article 21 of the Act of November 19, 2009, on Gambling Games (hereinafter: the Gambling Act) – it is 6 months from the date the claim becomes due. The limitation period is suspended from the date the complaint is submitted until a response is provided.

The question arises as to when the claim becomes due. This matter is not uniformly interpreted. The due date of a claim may also depend on the regulations of the gambling operator. For example, the moment a claim against the operator for the payment of winnings arises may depend on fulfilling certain obligations imposed on the player, such as the requirement to collect the winnings. Only after fulfilling these obligations does the claim for the payment of winnings arise. Failure to fulfill this obligation is equivalent to the claim not arising, in which case the claim cannot become time-barred. A deadline for collecting the winnings may also be set, and the expiration of that period may extinguish the claim. If no deadline is set, the gambling operator has the right to summon the player to submit a claim for the winnings within a specified period.

Case law indicates that the payment of winnings should occur immediately, and the due date is the day the player collects the winnings from the gambling operator.

Article 21 of the Gambling Act complements Article 413 of the Civil Code of April 23, 1964 (hereinafter: Civil Code), which states: “A person who fulfills an obligation arising from a game or wager cannot demand repayment, unless the game or wager was prohibited or unfair. Claims arising from a game or wager may only be pursued if the game or wager was conducted under the authorization of the competent state authority.”

This provision means that a player can pursue their claims arising from a game before a common court only if the game was legally organized by an entity holding the appropriate license or permit. Agreements for games concluded with an operator organizing illegal gambling games are therefore invalid and are not protected by law. However, such a player is not entirely deprived of the possibility to pursue claims. In such a case, they may have a claim for the return of an undue performance. General limitation periods apply, usually a six-year period.

It should be recalled that illegal gambling is punishable, as is participation in such games. The court may order the forfeiture of the performance in favor of the State Treasury if the performance was knowingly provided in exchange for committing an act prohibited by law or for an improper purpose. If the subject of the performance has been consumed or lost, its value may be forfeited (Article 412 of the Civil Code).

Footnote:
[1] K. Budnik, Commentary on Article 21 of the Gambling Act [in:] Gambling Act, ed. M. Wierzbowski, S. Radowicki. Available: LEX.