State Treaty on Gambling 2026 Amendments: Evaluation, Web Blocking & Reform Scenarios

The State Treaty on Gambling 2026 amendments revolve around the legally mandated evaluation of the GlüStV 2021 and the introduction of technical blocking measures such as IP blocking. The goal is clear: the channeling rate is to be increased by imposing harsher sanctions on the black market and adjusting deposit limits. The Second State Treaty amending the State Treaty on Gambling provides the legal basis for these stricter measures. At the same time, the Joint Gambling Authority of the Federal States (GGL) is intensifying its supervision of the OASIS and LUGAS systems.

The legal framework: Why 2026 is a turning point

The 2026 amendments adapt the GlüStV 2021 to new technical and legal conditions. Although the State Treaty on Gambling 2021 opened up the market, the current adjustments aim to close regulatory loopholes through the Second State Treaty amending the State Treaty on Gambling. In parallel, the 2026 evaluation assesses how effective the existing measures actually are. The Conference of Prime Ministers serves as the central body for political coordination. The European Court of Justice continuously exerts pressure to ensure the consistency of German regulations with EU law.

The evaluation of the GlüStV 2021: Status quo and deficits

The focus of current reform efforts is primarily on the implementation of the Second State Treaty amending the State Treaty on Gambling. This serves as a necessary "minor adjustment" to address urgent enforcement deficits before the major evaluation is completed. Specifically, technical measures such as IP blocking against unlicensed providers are to be tightened, which requires closer cooperation with internet service providers. The State Treaty on Gambling 2026 amendments are therefore closely linked to this preliminary stage, as they will be based on the findings of the 2026 evaluation. This evaluation checks whether the current model of the Joint Gambling Authority of the Federal States achieves the channeling targets or whether the black market continues to grow. Without these prior technical corrections, the subsequent comprehensive reform could hardly be implemented effectively.

The Second State Treaty amending the State Treaty on Gambling as a preliminary stage

German gambling policy is under constant scrutiny by the European Court of Justice. Ongoing proceedings are testing whether national rules are compatible with the EU freedom to provide services. The European Court of Justice has in the past already criticized German regulatory approaches as potentially incoherent, which limits political room for maneuver. This case law directly influences the State Treaty on Gambling 2026 amendments, as a negative ruling could force further liberalization. The 2026 evaluation must strictly take these European law requirements into account in order to create legally secure structures. If Germany ignores the requirements of the European Court of Justice, the state risks high damage claims and a destabilization of the legal market.

Timeline: When do new rules come into force?

The timeline for the State Treaty on Gambling 2026 amendments is tight. The draft of the Second State Treaty amending the State Treaty on Gambling was notified to the European Commission in 2025. The goal is ratification by the state parliaments in spring 2026 to enable it to enter into force in May 2026. This takes place parallel to the ongoing 2026 evaluation, which must be completed by December 31, 2026. The Conference of Prime Ministers must sign the final draft before the 16 state parliaments can approve it. A fully reformed treaty (potentially as GlüStV 2027 or 2028) would therefore become effective at the earliest 12 to 24 months after the completion of the evaluation.

Technical Enforcement: IP Blocking and the Power of the GGL

The planned State Treaty on Gambling 2026 amendments primarily aim at stricter technical enforcement to increase the channeling rate in the German market. From May 2026, internet service providers will be legally required to block access to unlicensed gambling offers via IP blocking and DNS blocking. This measure shifts the regulatory responsibility directly onto infrastructure operators and is intended to significantly reduce the attractiveness of the black market by making illegal platforms barely accessible to German users.

How do web blocks (IP blocking & DNS) work from 2026?

The Second State Treaty amending the State Treaty on Gambling significantly expands the legal basis for web blocks. In the future, not only the content providers themselves but explicitly also internet service providers such as Telekom, Vodafone, or 1&1 can be held responsible. These providers must implement technical measures that block data traffic to listed, unlicensed domains. Both full IP blocks and selective DNS filters will be used.

However, critics point to technical limitations: DNS blocks can often be bypassed using VPN services, and there is a risk of "overblocking," where legitimate content is blocked by mistake. Nevertheless, policymakers expect this additional hurdle to effectively discourage players from switching to the unregulated black market. Enforcement takes place regardless of whether the providers are responsible for the content, establishing a new level of liability in the German gambling market.

The Role of the Joint Gambling Authority of the Federal States

The Joint Gambling Authority of the Federal States (GGL) acts as the central supervisory authority and drives technical monitoring forward. Since 2023, the authority has been fully responsible for supervising the online gambling industry, utilizing advanced systems like LUGAS. LUGAS enables the Joint Gambling Authority of the Federal States to perform real-time monitoring of player activities, ensuring that deposit limits and other protective measures are observed.

Despite these instruments, the GGL registered tens of thousands of reports of illegal offers in 2024 alone, underlining the necessity of the new blocking measures. The authority faces the challenge of keeping the regulated market attractive while simultaneously increasing pressure on illegal operators. The State Treaty on Gambling 2026 amendments are intended to help the GGL find this balance through tougher technical enforcement tools.

Integration of OASIS into the Blocking Infrastructure

The central exclusion system OASIS remains a core pillar of player protection and is enforced more effectively through the GGL's new technical measures. OASIS serves as a nationwide database in which players can self-exclude to control risky gambling behavior. The Joint Gambling Authority of the Federal States is working to optimize the interfaces between OASIS, LUGAS and the providers to reduce latency times and improve data consistency.

Linking IP blocking and OASIS closes the gap between external blocks and internal player self-exclusion. The goal is to ensure that players who are excluded in OASIS cannot switch to alternative, illegal platforms, as these are increasingly rendered inaccessible by web blocks. This integrated approach is intended to permanently strengthen the protective effect of the State Treaty on Gambling.

Focus on Player Protection and Regulatory Limits

The discussion around the State Treaty on Gambling 2026 amendments focuses primarily on the balance between effective addiction prevention and market acceptance. While the flat monthly deposit limit of 1,000 Euros and the 5-second rule remain core instruments of player protection, current evaluations indicate a need for technical adjustments to stop players from migrating to the unregulated market.

How does the State Treaty on Gambling 2026 affect players?

Players in the regulated German market remain protected by strict regulations, with addiction prevention being at the forefront of regulatory measures. The central element here is the deposit limit, a regulatory upper limit that restricts monthly deposits to 1,000 Euros. This limit directly serves player protection by preventing financial excesses, but particularly affects high rollers, who often leave the legal market due to these restrictions.

In parallel, the 5-second rule significantly dictates the product design of online slots. This regulation enforces a minimum spin duration of five seconds between two bets while simultaneously prohibiting the use of autoplay functions. This deceleration is intended to reduce the intensity of play and prevent impulsive behavior. Although these measures follow the concept of protection, the combination of limits and slowed gameplay pace leads many users to perceive the attractiveness of licensed offers as lower compared to international platforms without such restrictions.

Criticism of the deposit limit and the 5-second rule

Critics from the industry and politics argue that rigid instruments like the deposit limit and the ban on autoplay are counterproductive and drive players into the black market. The 5-second rule is often viewed as technically outdated, as it severely impairs the gaming experience without损害 or effectively reaching individuals suffering from addiction.

The concern is that an overly restrictive approach lowers the channeling rate. If legal providers become unattractive due to high taxes and strict limits such as the deposit limit, players switch to unregulated foreign offers where neither player protection nor addiction prevention applies. In particular, the ban on autoplay is criticized as an interference with product freedom, which weakens the competitiveness of German licenses in European comparison.

Role of the Federal Centre for Health Education and Check-dein-Spiel.de

The BZgA coordinates national addiction prevention and provides the database for the evaluation. As a public institution, the BZgA collects and analyzes data on addiction prevalence, which flow directly into the evaluation of the State Treaty on Gambling. Its campaigns, such as the slogan "Gambling can be addictive," aim to raise awareness of risks and promote support services. In addition, the Check-dein-Spiel.de platform offers specific self-tests and advisory services, which are increasingly linked to state measures in the public perception.

The findings of the Federal Centre for Health Education are crucial for the political evaluation of the current protective measures. Should the data show that addiction problems are increasing despite the deposit limit and the 5-second rule, this could trigger Scenario 3 of the reform: a further restrictive tightening of the regulations. Conversely, positive developments in addiction statistics could serve as an argument for more market-friendly corrections to increase the attractiveness of the legal market.

Market Dynamics: Channeling Rate and the Black Market

The State Treaty on Gambling 2026 amendments primarily aim to significantly increase the channeling rate and stop migration to the black market. Current data shows that despite strict regulation, a significant portion of market volume remains with unregulated providers. The upcoming evaluation must therefore rebalance the tension between rigid player protection measures and the competitiveness of the legal market in order to achieve the fiscal and security policy goals of the state.

Strategies for Combating the Black Market

The black market in German gambling is not a niche phenomenon, but a structural problem that is estimated to generate significant turnover annually. This illegal activity directly contradicts the targeted channeling rate, which is set at 80% but currently remains at only 50% to 70% depending on the game type. To close this gap, policymakers are relying on technical measures such as IP blocking and stricter controls by the GGL.

However, these restrictions have a paradoxical effect: the stricter the national requirements for licensed providers, the more attractive foreign offers become for certain player groups. In particular, high rollers, who are severely restricted by the flat monthly deposit limit of 1,000 Euros, frequently switch to the black market where such limits do not apply. This migration undermines player protection, as these users do not have access to the OASIS exclusion system. Simply tightening the rules without adjusting the limits could therefore further lower the channeling rate instead of increasing it.

Impact of the Sports Betting Tax on the Market

The fiscal burden on the legal market is a major driver of market distortions. The current sports betting tax as well as the stakes tax on slots are viewed by critics as distorting competition, as they lead to lower payout ratios. In comparison, illegal providers often offer better odds and no tax-related restrictions, which increases their attractiveness for high rollers and casual players alike.

The market volume in Germany is significant, with a notable portion taking place in the illegal segment. This discrepancy shows that the current tax burden negatively affects the channeling rate. If licensed providers cannot offer attractive products due to the tax burden, they lose market share to the black market. A reform of the tax base could therefore be necessary to restore the competitiveness of the legal market and secure tax revenues in the long term.

Position of the Industry Associations on the Reform

Industry representatives have long demanded more market-friendly adjustments to strengthen channeling. The German Sports Betting Association argues that the current regulations do not sufficiently protect the integrity of sports, as they drive players to unregulated spaces where the risk of manipulation is higher. The association advocates for a liberalization of advertising and product rules to make licensed providers more visible.

The association of the coin-op machine industry (Verband der Automatenindustrie) also criticizes technical restrictions such as the 5-second rule and the autoplay ban. These measures lead to lower user acceptance and encourage migration. Both associations warn that further tightening without a simultaneous flexibilization of limits endangers the channeling rate. Instead, they plead for a model that combats the black market with more attractive legal offers rather than addressing it solely through prohibitions. Only in this way can the goal of a safe and controlled market in Germany be achieved.

About this article - Editorial & Responsibility

Author: Sarah Weber - Casino Tester & Bonus Analyst

Fact-checked by: Dr. Markus Hoffmann - Senior iGaming Compliance Analyst

Last updated: 2026-07-21.

This article on "State Treaty on Gambling 2026 Amendments" was written by Sarah Weber and fact-checked by Dr. Markus Hoffmann. Both regularly update the content regarding regulatory changes, license availability, and bonus conditions. All statements on licenses, authorities, and legal frameworks refer to publicly accessible sources (GGL (Joint Gambling Authority of the Federal States), State Treaty on Gambling 2021 (GlüStV 2021)).

About the Author

8+ years of casino reviews, 200+ personally tested platforms in the EU and internationally. Former member of the eCOGRA Player Advocacy Program (2018-2022). Specialization: wagering requirements, withdrawal workflows, customer support assessment.

About the Reviewer

12+ years in the iGaming industry, including 5 years as a compliance consultant for licensed operators under the State Treaty on Gambling 2021. PhD in Business Mathematics. Main research areas: bonus mathematics, wager analysis, player protection systems (OASIS).

Responsible Gambling

Gambling can be addictive. If you feel like you are losing control of your gambling behavior, please contact BZgA gambling addiction help, Check-dein-Spiel.de, or use the central exclusion system (OASIS (central player exclusion system)). Set personal deposit and loss limits before playing with real money. Pauses and cooldown features provided by operators are not a sign of weakness - they are a tool for sustainable gaming enjoyment.

Legal Notice

The information in this article is for editorial and comparison purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. The legal assessment of online gambling without a German license is a gray area and is subject to ongoing adjustments by the GGL (Joint Gambling Authority of the Federal States). Players themselves are responsible for complying with local regulations.