Spain's Supreme Court will decide whether bwin can close betting accounts without giving a reason

What the court has agreed to review

According to the post that first made the order public, the Supreme Court admitted ElectraWorks' cassation appeal against a judgment of the Provincial Court of Soria. The lower courts in that case ruled against the operator at first instance and on appeal; the Soria court declared the clause void and ordered the customer's account to be reopened.

The appeal was admitted on the ground of "cassation interest", which the Supreme Court uses when lower courts have issued conflicting decisions. Some provincial courts have declared the clause void and ordered accounts reopened; others have upheld it on the basis that a contract of indefinite duration can be ended with notice. The customer has 20 days to file an opposition.

Alberto Contreras Álvarez, a Spanish lawyer who specialises in online gambling disputes, stressed on X that the order "is not a judgment" and only means the court will finally rule on whether such termination clauses are abusive. He said a decision typically takes around two years, and that bwin appeals to the Supreme Court every provincial court ruling his clients win.

The clause in question

The clause is section 18.3 of bwin.es's general terms. In the current version on bwin's Spanish help site, it says the company may terminate the contract unilaterally "without needing to give reasons for its decision", while reserving the right to give reasons if it sees fit. It must give seven calendar days' notice by email, keep open any bets already placed, and then refund the available balance.

During the seven-day notice period, the clause also lets bwin restrict the account to the average amount and number of bets the customer placed in the week before the termination notice. The terms identify the contracting company as ElectraWorks (Ceuta), S.A., formerly ElectraWorks (Malta) Plc, which holds licences under Spain's 2011 Gambling Act.

The clause itself cites Article 85.4 of Spain's consolidated consumer protection law (Royal Legislative Decree 1/2007). That provision treats as abusive a term letting a business end an indefinite contract early without reasonable notice. The Supreme Court will test the clause against that law, read with its general unfair-terms provisions, and against Article 6 of the General Terms and Conditions of Contracts Act (Law 7/1998).

Why winning bettors care

Termination and stake-limiting clauses are at the centre of a long-running fight between Spanish operators and bettors whose accounts are restricted or closed after they win. In a 2023 case before the Provincial Court of Valencia, ElectraWorks did not contest a first-instance finding that a clause capping customers' stakes (clause 6.4) was void, and appealed only on the termination clause 18.3.

The Supreme Court has ruled against bookmaker terms before. In a 2020 judgment it held that a clause allowing an operator to void bets after the event, citing broad grounds such as "human or computer errors", was abusive because it left performance of the contract to the operator's discretion.

What the regulator says

Spain's gambling regulator, the Dirección General de Ordenación del Juego (DGOJ), takes a middle position in its published guidance. It says that, under current rules and the Supreme Court's existing interpretation, an operator ending an indefinite gambling contract cannot be treated as abusive "in principle and in every case". It also says operators should explain which customer behaviour can lead to termination, tell the customer the reasons and give at least 48 hours' notice, and keep pending bets on their original terms. The DGOJ adds that it is for the courts to assess each case.

Bwin's clause gives more notice than that guidance asks for, but it does not commit to giving a reason. That gap is the issue the Supreme Court is now set to settle.

What happens next

The admission order starts the appeal; it does not suspend or change bwin's terms. A Supreme Court judgment would set doctrine for courts across Spain and would likely shape how all state-licensed operators draft account termination terms. Spain is also tightening player-side controls, including a cross-platform deposit cap that AskSpinner covered earlier this month, and our comparison of Spanish and German deposit limits sets out how those rules differ. Across Europe, the EGBA's 2025 market figures show how national consumer and licensing rules continue to diverge even as the sector grows.