Top Prize on Scratch Cards – Who Wins?

Mar 5, 2026 Benn-Ibler Rechtsanwälte

The Austrian Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof, OGH) has determined that having the 5,000 symbol three times on a scratch card does not automatically entitle the holder to the top prize. When a scratch card comprises multiple distinct games—such as Game 1 and Game 2—participants must satisfy all specified winning criteria for each individual game, including those associated with the top prize. Symbols from different games cannot be combined or counted together. The interpretation of the ticket’s printed instructions, as outlined in Sections 914 and subsequent provisions of the Austrian Civil Code (Allgemeines bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, ABGB), is decisive in determining eligibility.

Several plaintiffs claimed entitlement to the principal prize of EUR 5,000 per month for one year on the basis that their tickets displayed three banknote symbols marked ‘5,000’. They contended that, in contrast to other prizes, the game rules did not explicitly require the main prize to be won per game; rather, it was only stipulated that the symbol appear three times. The defendant contested this position, asserting that each ticket comprised two distinct games and that, for all prizes—including the main prize—all relevant conditions must be satisfied within a single game.

The OGH highlighted that interpreting a contract should not rely only on the wording of a single sentence. The court emphasised the interpretation of the declaration by the recipient and its legal implications, rather than considering the intent of the declarant or the subjective perspective of the recipient. This approach is referred to as the objective declaration value (see RS0113932, RS0014160, RS0014205, etc.).

The ticket’s front design, featuring two distinctly separated games, alongside the comprehensive wording of the game conditions, unambiguously conveys that all prizes—including the main prize—are contingent upon achieving three matches within each individual game. There is no basis within the declaration to infer the existence of a third, overarching ‘overall game.’

Since Section 914 of the ABGB provides a clear interpretation; the ambiguity rule in Section 915 of the ABGB does not apply. Arguments based on consumer protection law, such as Section 5c of the Austrian Consumer Protection Act (Konsumentschutzgesetz, KSchG), or references to similar ongoing cases did not raise any substantial legal issues.

The OGH dismissed the plaintiffs’ appeals, stating that the interpretation of contract terms—including those drafted by one party—must be evaluated according to the unique circumstances of each case.

OGH 4 Ob 140/25d (28 January 2026)

OGH 1 Ob 181/25m (27 January 2026)