Landmark EU ruling on gambling losses: will it unsettle Malta’s model and Bill 55?
The highest Court of the European Union has ruled that online gamblers can generally rely on the law of their country of residence when suing for the recovery of losses, a decision some industry experts say could set a precedent and unsettle Malta’s point-of-supply model, though others argue its practical impact is more limited and largely reflects an approach already taken in certain national courts.
The EU Court of Justice, answering questions from Austria’s Supreme Court, stated that: “a player may, as a general rule, rely on the law of his or her country of residence when bringing an action to establish liability in tort or delict on the part of the directors of a foreign provider that does not hold the required licence.”
In comments to SiGMA News, the Malta Gaming Authority said it “notes the judgment in Case C 77/24/ Wunner and is reviewing its implications”, while insisting the ruling was limited in scope.
Michele Magro, former Chief Counsel – International Affairs & Policy at the Malta Gaming Authority (MGA) and a legal & compliance professional, told SiGMA News that the judgment is “definitely impactful”, but stressed it largely confirms what Austrian courts have applied for years, “neither groundbreaking, nor unexpected.”
Austrian law in the driving seat
The case was brought by an Austrian customer of Titanium Brace Marketing, a Maltese-licensed provider now in liquidation. Titanium held a licence in Malta but none in Austria. The player argues the contract was void and that the company’s directors are personally liable under Austrian law.
Titanium’s directors argued that Maltese law should govern the dispute. They claimed both the conduct and the damage took place in Malta, where the company was based and licensed.
The EU court rejected that view, pointing to the Rome II regulation, and said “the law applicable to a non-contractual obligation arising out of a tort or delict is, as a general rule, the law of the country in which the damage occurs.”
In online gambling, it added, “The damage sustained by the player is deemed to have occurred in the country in which that player resides”, and “the damage sustained by a player must be deemed to have occurred in the Member State in which that player is habitually resident”.
It also left room to apply another law where appropriate: “where it is clear from all the circumstances of the case that the tort or delict is manifestly more closely connected with another country, the Rome II Regulation allows the court seised to depart from the general rule and to apply the law of that other country.”
Magro noted that, while the ruling confirms the admissibility of cross-border, non-contractual damages actions against directors under Rome II, including how to determine where harm occurred, it does not eliminate defences: “Directors still have different lines of defense in different countries.”
Point-of-supply model tested by cross-border claims
The judgment lands in the middle of a wider EU fight over Malta’s attempt to shield its licensees from foreign refund claims, the policy first known as Bill 55 and now embedded in Article 56A of Malta’s Gaming Act.
On the same day as the EU court delivered its ruling, Malta’s civil court refused to recognise an Austrian judgment ordering Betway to repay more than €83,000 to an Austrian player.
In practice, the provision has been deployed as part of a broader argument in Maltese courts that enforcing refund judgments from countries such as Austria and Germany would collide with Malta’s public policy and its view of EU single-market freedoms.
The pressure is especially intense from Germany, where a cottage industry has grown around reclaiming gambling losses from operators that lack a German licence, creating, de facto, a “bet. lose. sue. repeat.” business. As one law firm markets it: “File a lawsuit against online casinos and demand money back – also from sports betting providers! Request a free initial consultation here.”
Malta’s Bill 55 is also coming under growing scrutiny at EU level, with critics arguing that it clashes with mutual recognition of judgments and the EU’s private international law framework. Magro cautioned that, given the infringement procedures filed by the European Commission against Malta, reliance on Bill 55 should be treated “with a great deal of caution” and “is not a magic bullet that makes liability disappear.”
On whether the ruling will trigger a fresh wave of claims, Magro said the most active jurisdictions remain “especially in Germany and Austria,” adding he does not believe the player-claims industry has been holding back or waiting for Wunner to file cases.
Regulator plays down impact on Malta’s licensing model
“Malta’s licensing regime has long operated on a point-of-supply basis, under which operators authorised in Malta may provide services across borders where they have a justifiable legal reason to do so and comply fully with Malta’s robust regulatory framework,” the MGA told SiGMA News.
“It is important to underline that the Court did not examine, question, or assess the validity of Malta’s regulatory framework,” it said, adding: “The Court did not pronounce itself on the substance of the underlying player claim.”
The regulator also stressed: “It does not relate to Article 56A (formerly Bill 55), which addresses a different legal context and reflects Malta’s longstanding public policy on online gaming matters.”
Michele Magro echoed the “separate tracks” point, saying Bill 55 is facing its own challenges but “is not impacted by the Wunner ruling,” and that the key battlefield for Bill 55 will be the ongoing EU-level discussion tied to infringement proceedings.
Looking beyond the immediate litigation risk, Magro argued Malta’s hub status is now broader than MGA licensing alone: “Malta is no longer a hub for MGA-licensed operators only, it is a hub for regulated operators,” including those regulated by other European regulators. He added that serious operators still need an EU base, and “flocking to a jurisdiction that is harder to reach is not really an option,” concluding that Malta remains best placed as a European-facing iGaming hub.
Subscribe HERE to SiGMA’s Top 10 News countdown and SiGMA’s weekly newsletter to stay up to date with all the latest iGaming News from the world’s iGaming authority, and benefit from subscriber-only offers.
