Denmark’s Supreme Court will hear a case on 10 March 2027 that decides whether money sitting in online player accounts belongs to the players or to the creditors of a bankrupt gambling operator.
The dispute comes out of the bankruptcy of DK Gambling ApS, declared insolvent on 22 April 2022. A player sued the estate’s trustee for the balance held in their gaming account on the date of the collapse, arguing it was a separatist claim (separatistkrav) under Danish insolvency law: money held on the player’s behalf, not an asset of the estate. The trustee argued the funds had no specific protection against bankruptcy and ranked alongside every other unsecured claim.
How the case reached the Supreme Court
Spillemyndigheden, the Danish Gambling Authority, joined the case as a supporting party (biintervenient) on 13 September 2023 on the player’s side. The regulator’s position is that the trustee’s reading conflicts with Danish gambling legislation, which requires operators to hold customer funds so that they are secured if the operator fails.
The Maritime and Commercial Court ruled for the estate on 5 March 2024. It rejected the separatist claim and acquitted the bankruptcy estate, leaving the player’s balance as an ordinary claim against the assets. Spillemyndigheden said after the judgment:
If the judgment stands, the model described in gambling legislation generally does not secure player money as intended.
The player appealed. On 8 July 2024 the Eastern High Court (Østre Landsret) allowed Spillemyndigheden to intervene in support of the player at the appeal stage, and the main hearing took place on 16 October 2025. The High Court overturned the first-instance ruling in November 2025, finding that funds in a player account carry separate protection and belong to the player rather than to the operator’s other creditors. The trustee has taken that decision to the Supreme Court.
What the law requires and what is unsettled
Danish gambling legislation obliges licence holders to keep player funds in a way that protects them in the event of the operator’s bankruptcy. What the courts have been asked to settle is what that obligation does when the operator has failed: whether it gives the player a proprietary claim that a trustee must honour ahead of the general creditors, or whether it is a licensing duty whose breach leaves the player queuing with suppliers, tax authorities and lenders.
The distinction decides who absorbs the loss. Under the trustee’s reading, a player with money in a failed operator’s account recovers whatever percentage the estate pays out, which in most insolvencies is a fraction. Under the High Court’s reading, the balance is ring-fenced and paid in full before distribution.
A second insolvency is already waiting
Denmark’s licensed market already has a second estate in the same position. Jackpotbet A/S entered bankruptcy on 18 June 2026, and its online casino and betting licences lapsed. Any player balances held there fall under the same legal treatment the Supreme Court is now reviewing, as would balances at any future failure among the country’s licence holders.
Denmark runs one of Europe’s more tightly supervised licensed markets, with online casino the largest vertical by gross gaming revenue and Spillemyndigheden active on site blocking and advertising restrictions. The regulator has also moved against unlicensed operators reachable from Denmark. A ruling for the trustee would leave a gap between what the licensing regime tells players their money is and what insolvency law does with it.
What happens next
Until the Supreme Court rules, the High Court decision stands as the operative statement of Danish law, and trustees handling gambling estates have to weigh it when deciding how to treat customer balances. Spillemyndigheden said after the 2024 first-instance loss that if the position became final it would analyse the scope and consequences and examine what measures operators should be required to take over the handling of player accounts. That work becomes live again if the Supreme Court restores the original judgment.
The legislative route
Denmark already has a two-phase gambling reform package in motion, and an explicit statutory rule on the insolvency status of player funds would settle the question without waiting for the courts. Parliament has until the 10 March 2027 hearing if it wants the answer written into statute rather than handed down by the court.
Source: Spillemyndigheden
