Gaming industry under growing EU pressure

In February 2025, the Maltese Court of Appeal sided with Malta’s policy and refused to enforce two Austrian judgments, signalling that foreign claims should not override Malta’s licence framework. Since then, the dispute has intensified on several fronts with the European Commission and Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) weighing in. Fast forward to June 2025, the European Commission formally launched infringement proceedings against Malta’s Bill 55. Brussels warned Malta that Article 56A breaches EU rules by shielding its gaming sector from cross-border claims and undermines the principle of mutual trust among Member States. Malta was given two months to reply, and the matter remains pending before the Commission, with a referral to the ECJ still possible. In response, the Government and the Malta Gaming Authority (MGA) vehemently defended Bill 55.

At the heart of the conflict are sharply contrasting legal arguments.

Malta’s government and regulator argue that Bill 55 simply reaffirmed existing public-policy exceptions under EU law, without creating new grounds to reject judgments or imposing a blanket ban on enforcement. They say the law codifies Malta’s “long-standing public policy on online gaming” and reflects the limited ordre public exception already in the Brussels I Recast Regulation. In their view, unfair foreign judgments, which are often based on protectionist local monopoly laws, should not upset Malta’s regulated market.

By contrast, the European Commission and critics view Bill 55 as a protectionist loophole that breaks fundamental EU principles. By allowing Malta to flatly refuse to enforce rival EU court orders, Brussels says it violates the requirement that Member States mutually recognize judicial decisions. In this view, Bill 55 provides Malta with an open-ended shield, as it obliges Maltese judges to dismiss any claim against an operator licensed in Malta. Such wholesale non-enforcement goes beyond the narrow “public policy” ground usually allowed; the Commission argues and thus undermines mutual trust in the EU legal order.

The Austrian side, and by extension, Germany, adds further tension. Austria maintains a strict state gambling monopoly, with its courts treating any unlicensed play as illegal. From Austria’s perspective, Maltese licensees were acting unlawfully under Austrian law. As Malta’s courts have refused to honour Austrian rulings, Austria’s judicial response has been to find ways around Malta’s law, for example, by ordering Austrian banks to pay out or by invoking rarely used legal provisions to keep judgments alive.

Over the past year, three significant proceedings before the CJEU have further shaped the legal landscape.

In Wunner (Case C‑77/24, Jan 2026) the CJEU held that in damages claims for illegal gambling, the “place of damage” is the gambler’s habitual residence. Concretely, an Austrian who lost money betting on a Malta-licensed site had his losses deemed to occur in Austria, meaning Austrian law applied. The Malta Gaming Authority noted this ruling was “definitely impactful” but “neither groundbreaking nor unexpected,” confirming that local laws often govern such claims, though Malta’s legal defences remain intact.

In April 2026 the CJEU’s Advocate General Nicholas Emiliou issued an opinion in Spielerschutz Sigma (C‑683/24). He found the Austrian court’s preliminary reference technically inadmissible but nonetheless opined that Article 56A would be “manifestly incompatible” with EU rules on recognition and enforcement. Emiliou warned that Bill 55 appears designed primarily to protect Malta’s gaming industry, an “essential” sector, and that economic interests alone cannot justify overriding EU freedoms. He stressed that foreign judgments against Maltese operators must, in principle, be recognised and enforced in all Member States. While AG opinions are non-binding, this was a clear signal that Malta’s statute is on shaky ground under Brussels I bis.

Then, on 21 May 2026, the CJEU delivered its judgment in Mr Green (C‑198/24). In that cross-border debt case, an Austrian player had obtained a judgment ordering Malta-licensed Mr Green Limited to repay €62,878 and sought a European Account Preservation Order (EAPO) to freeze the operator’s assets abroad. The question was whether laws like Malta’s Bill 55 count as a risk factor for asset dissipation. The Court answered in the affirmative, holding that a court issuing an EAPO may take into account the existence, in the Member State where the debtor is established, of a law capable of impeding enforcement of the claim. In other words, Article 56A itself may justify urgent asset-freezing, by evidencing that the debtor might evade payment. As one commentator noted, the very existence of Malta’s law can now weigh in favour of granting cross-border freezing relief.

Taken together, these rulings and opinions have sharpened the legal stakes. The AG’s advice and the Mr Green judgment both suggest that Malta’s carve-out for gaming licenses could backfire, by encouraging creditors to bypass local courts entirely. Maltese operators now face possible EAPOs on foreign accounts and a legal precedent (Wunner) that many refund claims can proceed under other Member States’ laws. These developments place additional pressure on Malta’s “point of supply” licensing model, which assumes a Maltese licence allows cross-border operations.