Swiss Federal Supreme Court, 18.11.2025, 2C_62/2025
Facts
A company (the appellant) operates an online platform where it sells and trades digital sports trading cards (NFTs). On the same domain, it offers online games (football, basketball, baseball) in which these cards are used to build teams and participate in tournaments. Top players can win prizes, including cryptocurrency or additional cards.
The Intercantonal Gambling Supervisory Authority (Gespa) added the company's domain to its blocklist, deeming the offering to be an unauthorized online gambling service in Switzerland. After its objection was rejected by Gespa, the company appealed to the Gambling Court, which upheld the decision. The company then appealed to the Federal Supreme Court.
Legal Analysis
According to the Federal Gambling Act (LJAr), a game of chance is a game that, in exchange for a stake of monetary value or the conclusion of a legal transaction, offers the prospect of a monetary gain or another financial advantage (art. 3 let. a LJAr). These two conditions (stake/legal transaction and prospect of gain) are cumulative.
Access to online gambling services not authorized in Switzerland must be blocked when the operator is based abroad and the offering is accessible from Switzerland (art. 86 para. 1 and 2 LJAr). Gespa is responsible for maintaining a list of domains to be blocked.
Application to the case
The Federal Supreme Court had to determine whether the online games offered by the appellant met the definition of a game of chance under Art. 3 let. a LJAr.
The condition regarding the prospect of a financial gain was not disputed, as players could win cryptocurrency or cards with market value.
The dispute centered on the existence of a "stake of monetary value" or the "conclusion of a legal transaction." The appellant argued that purchasing NFT cards did not constitute a stake, as the cards did not lose their value after being used in the game and could simply be collected.
The Federal Supreme Court rejected this argument. It noted a factual dependency and economic interweaving between the marketplace where the cards are purchased and the online games. Possession of the cards is a necessary condition for participating in the games. The acquisition of these cards therefore constitutes the "conclusion of a legal transaction" that enables participation in the game.
The Court clarified that it is not necessary for the stake or the consideration for the legal transaction to be lost or lose its value after participating in the game. The mere fact that a paid legal transaction is required to be able to play is sufficient to satisfy the first condition of the definition of a game of chance. The fact that participation is not automatic after purchase or that free cards are provided at the start does not change this classification.
As both conditions of Art. 3 let. a LJAr are met, the games offered are classified as games of chance.
Issue
The Federal Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal. It confirms that the appellant's offering constitutes a gambling activity subject to authorization. As the company is based abroad and lacks the required authorization, the blocking of its domain name by Gespa, in accordance with Art. 86 of the Federal Act on Gambling (LJAr), is deemed lawful.
Silex tax newsletter published in collaboration with Anna Vladau, Attorney at Law
