EGBA pushes EU standard as cross-border battles grow
The European Gaming and Betting Association (EGBA) has called on national regulators to back a new European standard on gambling harm, as questions over harmonisation and cross-border disputes continue to divide Europe’s online betting industry.
The vote on the proposed standard, overseen by the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN), closes on 25 September. It follows a three-year process that began with EGBA’s original proposal in 2022.
The standard would create a common set of “markers of harm”, behavioural indicators such as changes in speed, time, and duration of play, that could help operators detect risky gambling behaviour earlier and more consistently across borders.
“This EGBA-proposed initiative demonstrates precisely the kind of collaboration we need more of – bringing together stakeholders to share knowledge and experiences to create something for the common good,” said EGBA Secretary General Maarten Haijer. “We call on national delegates to approve the important standard, which will contribute to a better understanding of problem gambling behaviour and support more effective harm prevention across Europe.”
If approved, the standard will be voluntary, with regulators free to decide whether to adopt it into national frameworks. It is expected to be published by early 2026.
Balancing innovation and consumer protection
The proposal comes against a wider backdrop of debate over whether the EU should push for harmonisation in the gambling sector.
Ambassador Chris Farrugia, Malta’s Deputy Permanent Representative to the EU, told SiGMA News that gaming is “a vital pillar of the EU’s digital economy,” supporting IT, cybersecurity, data, compliance, payments and consultancy jobs across Europe.
Farrugia pointed to recent European Commission initiatives aimed at reducing bureaucracy for businesses after the uneven post-pandemic recovery. “The need to simplify, the need to cut red tape, the need to make it easier for our industries and our businesses to thrive” has become the cross-cutting theme in competitiveness reviews, he said.
But he warned against blanket EU rules, saying: “We cannot always have a one size fits all when it comes to every specific sector.” Instead, he called for proportionate simplification and targeted harmonisation, particularly in areas such as consumer protection, while maintaining space for innovation.
“One of the toughest challenges is how to balance innovation, taking into account the need to preserve safety and consumer protection, and not overregulate,” Farrugia said. He cited the AI Act’s requirement for national sandboxes as an example of encouraging responsible development while safeguarding consumers.
“In terms of expertise we have a lot to contribute,” he added, highlighting Malta’s early role in establishing a regulatory framework for online gaming in 2004. The industry now accounts for about 7% of Malta’s gross value added.
Fragmented enforcement across borders
While EGBA is pushing for a shared framework on safer gambling, disputes between national jurisdictions are testing the limits of Europe’s single market.
At the SiGMA Euro-Med Summit, Maltese lawyer Davinia Cutajar highlighted thousands of Austrian player claims against Malta-licensed operators.
The disputes are further complicated by Malta’s Article 56A, better known as Bill 55, introduced in 2023. The provision shields Malta-licensed operators by instructing Maltese courts not to recognise foreign rulings against them if the activity was legal under Maltese law. While Malta argues this aligns with the EU single market principle, The European Commission has launched infringement proceedings against Malta, warning that Bill 55 may breach EU obligations on mutual recognition of judgments.
Dr Nicole Daniel of DLA Piper Austria explained that Austrian lawyers have been using an unusual mechanism, known as “ordination,” to pursue claims. “Players can reclaim their losses when they played on any of the websites that do not have a local licence, and they’re doing that. Since enforcement is very difficult, multiple plaintiff lawyers have become creative.” she said.
Daniel warned that the process is one-sided: “Because it’s unilateral, that inherently carries the risk that the Supreme Court only hears the arguments of the plaintiff and the supporting documents. The operators are not heard. They are not summoned, which is a massive issue.”
The road ahead
For EGBA, a common European framework on gambling harm is designed to raise consumer protection standards across borders, even as operators and regulators grapple with conflicting national laws.
Supporters argue that harmonisation on markers of harm could be an achievable step towards consistency without imposing a full EU regulatory regime on the sector. But as Farrugia noted, “We cannot always have a one size fits all,” and national disputes such as those in Austria and the Netherlands show how divergent legal systems can clash with the EU’s single market principles.
