A recent preliminary ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) marks another turning point in the long-running Malta–Austria gambling dispute, placing Malta’s Bill 55 under increasing scrutiny. In Wunner (C-77/24), the CJEU held that an Austrian player who lost money on a Malta-licensed online casino may sue for damages under Austrian law. The case was referred by Austria’s Supreme Court after a resident sued two directors of Titanium Brace Marketing – a now-liquidated Maltese gaming provider – to recover around €18,500 in gambling losses. The CJEU agreed with the player that the damage occurred where the player resides, meaning Austrian law and courts have jurisdiction.
The ruling significantly raises the stakes for Malta’s gambling sector. It opens the door for hundreds of similar claims in Austria and Germany and reinforces the principle that local gambling laws, rather than Maltese law, will often govern disputes over player losses. While the judgment does not directly address Malta’s legislative response to such claims, it adds pressure to an already contested legal framework.
The Malta Gaming Authority (MGA) is currently reviewing the implications of the case. It described the decision as “definitely impactful” but “neither groundbreaking nor unexpected”, as Austrian courts have applied similar reasoning for years. According to the MGA, while the judgment confirms that cross-border, non-contractual damages actions against directors are admissible under the Rome II Regulation, it does not eliminate legal defences.
One such defence is Malta’s Bill 55, formally Article 56A of the Gaming Act, enacted in June 2023. The provision instructs Maltese courts not to recognise or enforce foreign judgments that would undermine a Maltese gambling licence. The law was justified as a measure to protect Malta’s vital gaming industry from “potentially costly legal claims abroad”. In practice, it has been invoked to argue that enforcing Austrian and German refund judgments would conflict with Malta’s public policy and its interpretation of EU internal market freedoms. The MGA maintains that Article 56A merely reaffirms existing EU law principles, particularly the ordre public exception in the Brussels I Recast Regulation, and does not impose a blanket ban on enforcement.
Maltese courts have already relied on this reasoning to refuse enforcement of Austrian rulings. On the same day the CJEU delivered its Wunner judgment, Malta’s civil court rejected an Austrian order requiring Betway to repay more than €83,000 to an Austrian player. The court found that recognising the judgment would violate Malta’s public policy by effectively penalising conduct that is lawful under Maltese law and permitted under EU internal market rules. This, it said, met the high threshold required to invoke the public policy exception under the Brussels I Recast Regulation.
Notably, the court did not rely solely on Article 56A to justify its refusal. Instead, it examined the broader legal context, reinforcing the reasoning behind the decision. This suggests a deliberate effort to strengthen the legal foundations of Bill 55 in anticipation of further challenges.
These developments come as especially Austrian and German courts continue to see a surge in claims from players seeking to recover losses in Malta. Against this backdrop, Malta’s legislative response has drawn the attention of the European Commission. On 18 June 2025, the Commission launched an infringement procedure (INFR(2025)2100) against Malta for failing to comply with Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments. Brussels argues that Bill 55 obliges Maltese courts to systematically refuse recognition of other EU judgments against local licence-holders, thereby shielding the online gaming sector from cross-border litigation.
The Commission warned that Malta is applying the public policy exception far beyond the “exceptional cases” envisaged under EU law, undermining mutual trust in the EU judicial system. The infringement procedure is now pending and could ultimately lead to a case before the CJEU.
Further pressure may come from a related development at EU level. In October 2025, Advocate General Emiliou delivered his opinion in Case C-198/24 (TQ v Mr Green Limited), focusing on the European Account Preservation Order (EAPO) Regulation. While the case did not directly address the legality of Bill 55, the Advocate General suggested that EU consumers could use the EAPO mechanism to secure asset-freezing orders against Maltese firms that refuse to pay gambling-related debts.
Importantly, he indicated that national barriers to enforcement, such as Malta’s refusal to recognise foreign judgments under Article 56A, may be relevant when assessing the risk that a debtor could evade payment. This could justify the freezing of assets held by Maltese gambling companies elsewhere in the EU, effectively allowing claimants to bypass Bill 55 by targeting non-Malta-based accounts.
Taken together, these developments suggest that the legal walls around Bill 55 may be closing in. While neither the Wunner ruling nor the Advocate General’s opinion constitutes a direct EU challenge to Malta’s law, both highlight the growing tension between Malta’s regulatory model and the EU’s cross-border justice framework. The European Commission’s infringement procedure will be decisive in determining whether Article 56A can withstand scrutiny or must be amended or repealed.
