The French Court of Cassation on 2 September 2026 ruled that a €100,000 credit made by mistake to an online gambling customer does not fall under the “exception de jeu” that shields gambling debts from restitution claims.
Operator seeks recovery of mistaken credit
An online gaming operator discovered that its payment system had transferred €100,000 to a player’s account without any corresponding wager. The operator filed a claim demanding the sum be returned, invoking articles 1965 and 1967 of the French Civil Code, which normally bar legal action on gambling debts.
The player responded by relying on the same articles, arguing that the “exception de jeu” should preclude the operator from recovering the funds. If the court had accepted that argument, the operator’s request would have been dismissed without a substantive examination of the case.
The Court of Cassation refused to apply the exception, ruling that the €100,000 was not linked to any wager and thus did not qualify as a gambling debt. Instead, the payment was classified as an “induced payment” (paiement indu) under article 1302 of the Civil Code.
Article 1302 provides that any payment requires an underlying obligation; if a sum is received without such obligation, it must be restituted. The Court also cited article 1302-1, which states that the recipient of mistakenly received funds must return them.
Because the transfer resulted from a system malfunction, the Court concluded that no contractual or gambling-related obligation arose. The operator’s claim therefore rested on a simple restitution right, not on the contested gambling-debt exception.
Read Also: Employers limited in accessing employee emails
The decision also clarified the consequences of the classification. Under article 1302-3, the court may consider the fault of the party who made the erroneous payment when assessing damages. Interest accrues from the date of receipt if the recipient acted in bad faith; otherwise, it begins upon the creditor’s demand.
Interpretation anchored in the 2016 ordinance report
The Court explicitly relied on the report to the President accompanying the 2016 ordinance reforming contract law. Although the report lacks normative force, the judges used it to illuminate legislative intent behind articles 1965-1967.
By referencing the report, the Court signaled that the “exception de jeu” should be applied narrowly, focusing on the nature of the obligation rather than the context in which a payment occurs. This approach confirms the report’s role as an interpretive aid for the 2016 reform’s provisions.
Scope and Limits of the French “Exception de Jeu”
The “exception de jeu” is defined by articles 1965 and 1967 of the Civil Code. Article 1965 provides that the law grants no legal action for a gambling debt or for payment of a wager. Article 1967 bars the losing party from recovering what was voluntarily paid, except when the payment results from fraud, deceit, or scam. The legislators of 1804 intended to keep courts out of gambling disputes; the participant assumes the risk and bears it alone.
The exception applies only to obligations directly arising from the game-such as prizes, stakes, or agreed wagers-not to any payment unrelated to a wager. The decisive factor is the nature of the debt, not the activity of the party invoking it, and article 1966 historically limited the rule to games of skill and bodily exercises. The accompanying 2016 ordinance report, published in the Official Journal, outlines governmental intent, restates existing law, codifies jurisprudence, and notes occasional innovations, but it carries no normative force. Ten years after the reform, courts cite the report as an interpretive instrument, and practitioners regularly rely on it in their pleadings.
Implications for online gaming operators
The ruling clarifies that operators may recover mistakenly credited funds without the exception applying. This means that operators can recover mistakenly credited funds without being barred by the “exception de jeu”.
