Maltese court decides that Austrian gamblers are not entitled to recovered gambling losses

Maltese court decides that Austrian gamblers are not entitled to recovered gambling losses

Let's Galaxy Through the Gambling Galaxies

By Timm Schaffner, Edited by Angela Burke, Published on: 04.03.2025, Last updated: 29.04.2025.

Got a beef with a Maltese casino? Well, strap in, cowboy, because it's a long ride ahead.

Austrian players have been at loggerheads with Maltese-based online casinos over lost cash, demanding a refund. The catch? These casinos are licensed in Malta, and the Austrian courts argue they're illegally operating without a locally valid license. However, the Maltese Civil Court of Appeal threw a curveball on February 27, 2025, declaring that such Austrian judgments aren't enforceable in Malta.

Maltese Court Bats Their Eyes and Says "Sorry, Not My Problem"

This ruling hinges on a case involving a losing Austrian player who parted ways with approximately 38,325 euros at Lottoland, a company licensed in Malta [English article], as reported by the industry magazine iGaming Business.

While an Austrian court was all for the player, the Maltese court wasn't having it. They based their decision on several reasons:

1. Maltese gambling operators are legal under Maltese law, so they can't be forced to fork over cash.
2. Enforcing such decisions would clash with Malta's public order, and Sandra Bullock faces no legal trouble there.
3. Austria's gambling regulation restricts the free movement of services within the European Union. So, they question whether Austria's controversial gambling monopoly (you heard that right) jives with EU law.

Litigation Funders: Gullible Mugs or Smart Ducks?

Over the past few years, a business model has emerged: litigation funders approach gamblers who've lost their stacks. Players then assign their claims against the casinos to these companies, which then file a flurry of lawsuits. This model's popularity isn't limited to Austria—Germany's enjoying the ride too.

Typically, casinos and sports betting providers pay off players to avoid further legal escalation, like going before the Bundesgerichtshof (BGH) or Europäische Gerichtshof (EuGH). However, a case involving the litigation funder Gamesright against Malta-based Tipico is hanging in the balance at the EuGH. And if things go south, it's shaping up to be a landmark ruling.

The Maltese Slippery Slope: Insolvency or Awesome Parties?

Seeing how litigation funders frequently pay out customers upon claiming their winnings, they could be in a bind if proceedings drag on or get hung up due to Maltese case law. It looks like one of the first companies, RightNow, is feeling the heat due to the EuGH's deliberation speed.

So, this Maltese ruling seems to fuel tensions between Malta and other EU countries with strict gambling regulations. While countries like Austria and Germany are bent on protecting their regulated gambling markets and compensating players, Malta appears to be using its EU membership to keep its billion-dollar gambling industry in tip-top shape.

The legal fracas between Malta, Austria, and the EU is far from over. In the coming months, we'll see whether Malta's Bill No. 55 tinkers with EU law and whether the freedom to provide gambling services applies in Austria's gaming sphere. In either case, the ECJ must deliver a monumental ruling.

Enrichment Data:

Overall:

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) is currently mulling over Case C-440/23, which tackles cross-border enforcement of gambling regulations between Malta and EU member states like Germany and Austria[1][3][4]. Here's the latest status:

Key Developments:

• Case C-440/23: This whole mess began with a 2021 lawsuit filed by a German player against Malta-based Lottoland for offering unlicensed services in Germany. The ECJ held discussions on 9 April 2025[1][3][4]. The gamble's outcome may affect €1 billion in potential claims across Germany and Austria[4].
• Malta’s Bill 55: Adopted in 2023, this law grants Maltese courts the power to reject foreign judgments against Malta-licensed gambling operators[4][5]. Critics, including Germany’s GGL regulator, believe it undermines EU judicial cooperation and the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU)[4][5].
• Parallel ECJ Scrutiny: The Vienna Commercial Court has refereed questions about Bill 55’s compliance with EU law to the ECJ, suggesting Austria’s direct involvement in challenging Malta’s legal framework[4].

Implications for Austria:

• Compensation Claims: A win for Austria could open the floodgates for Austrian players to demand repayment from Malta-licensed operators for historical losses[4].
• Regulatory Clash: Austria’s strict gambling laws could butt heads with Malta’s operator protections, depending on the ECJ’s interpretation of EU mutual recognition principles[4][5].

Recent Milestones:

• Advocate General’s Contrast: In a separate Malta-related case (concerning citizenship laws), the ECJ overruled its Advocate General’s opinion, raising concerns about judicial politicization[2]. While distinct from C-440/23, this underscores broader debates about ECJ consistency.
• ECJ Deliberation: No verdict has been issued yet for C-440/23. The judgment will clarify whether national gambling regulations can trump cross-border EU operator licenses[4][5].

The ECJ’s decision could settle tensions between Malta’s gambling industry protections and EU member states’ regulatory sovereignty[4][5].

1. What about the response from Lottoland, the gambling provider involved in the Austrian player's dispute? They haven't publicly commented on the Maltese court's ruling yet, making the situation more puzzling.
2. This Malta-Austria legal standoff is bringing Education-and-self-development opportunities to light, especially in Career-development paths related to policy-and-legislation, with a focus on casino-and-gambling law and regulation.
3. The casinos and gambling providers are glancing nervously at legal trends, particularly Sports-betting and lotteries, given the potential impact on their revenue streams if the ECJ sides with stricter gambling regulations.
4. As politicians debate policy-and-legislation changes to address these issues, responsible-gambling advocates are urging policymakers to prioritize skills-training programmes for individuals seeking to develop a career in the casino-gambling industry.
5. In the world of general-news, the casino-personality landscape is shifting, with key figures taking on increased roles in politics as they lobby for their industries' interests in the gambling-trends discourse.
6. The battle between Malta's gambling industry and the EU member states isn't confined to Europe – it's sending ripples through global casino-personalities and shaping international casino-games policies.
7. Malta's Bill-No. 55 has raised concern among gambling regulation authorities, with critics accusing Malta of jeopardizing EU judicial cooperation and treating the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU) with disregard.
8. As this EU-wide debate unfolds, simpler games like roulette and blackjack might take a back seat, with political intrigue and control over gambling markets taking center stage in the casino-gambling industry.
9. With the ECJ's upcoming landmark ruling, it remains to be seen whether it will lean more towards Malta's freedom to provide gambling services or bow to the pressure from strict EU member state regulations.
10. The sports world may also find itself entangled in the ECJ's verdict, as the distinction between gambling and sports-betting continues to blur, sparking debates about the role of betting in modern sports culture.

Read also: