EU top court: Member states can bar some Malta‑licensed online gambling and players can sue under home law

A new ruling from the European Union’s top court has strengthened the legal footing for players in countries such as Germany or Austria to try to recover online gambling losses from operators licensed in Malta — while stopping well short of any automatic EU-wide refund order.

In a judgment issued April 16 in Case C-440/23, the Court of Justice of the European Union said EU law does not stop a member state from banning certain online gambling services offered from another member state and from attaching civil-law consequences to that ban. In plain terms, a gambling operator’s Maltese license does not by itself shield it from another EU country’s rules if that country requires its own license or prohibits a product and allows private claims to recover losses.

That ruling builds on a separate CJEU decision from Jan. 15 in Case C-77/24, known as Wunner. There, the court said that for this type of claim, “the damage sustained by the player is deemed to have occurred in the country in which that player resides.” That means the law of the player’s home country will generally govern claims seeking repayment of losses tied to an operator that lacked the required local authorization.

Together, the two rulings clarify the basic legal framework for a growing class of cross-border disputes over online gambling in the EU. First, players will often be able to sue under the law of the country where they live. Second, EU law does not, on its own, block member states from prohibiting some gambling services licensed elsewhere in the bloc and from imposing civil consequences such as contract nullity or restitution.

The April 16 case involved FB v European Lotto and Betting Ltd and Deutsche Lotto-und Sportwetten Ltd. The operators were licensed in Malta. The dispute concerned online slot-machine games and betting on lottery outcomes offered from Malta, and a claimant who was seeking recovery of stakes.

In a press summary, the CJEU said: “Online games of chance: EU law does not preclude a Member State from prohibiting certain services provided online and authorised in other Member States, and from attaching civil-law consequences to that prohibition.”

That matters beyond the named parties because Malta is one of Europe’s main licensing hubs for online gambling operators. The legal fight is not about whether a Maltese license exists. It is about whether another EU country can still insist on its own licensing rules, or ban certain gambling offers, and then let players seek their money back under that country’s law.

The January ruling arose from a dispute involving Titanium Brace Marketing Limited, another Malta-licensed operator, and an Austrian resident. The court’s answer in that case pointed national judges toward the player’s country of residence as the place where the damage usually occurs.

Still, neither ruling means players automatically win refunds. The CJEU does not decide the facts of those private disputes or award damages in these cases. It answers questions of EU law referred by national courts, which must then apply those answers in live litigation.

Just as importantly, the court did not impose an EU-wide ban on Malta-licensed gambling. Its point was narrower: EU law does not preclude member states from adopting and enforcing certain national prohibitions and civil consequences. National courts still have to assess the domestic rules at issue and any remaining EU-law limits, including whether restrictions are proportionate.

Another front in the dispute is enforcement. In June 2023, Malta passed Article 56A of its Gaming Act, widely known as Bill 55. The provision directs Maltese courts, on public-policy grounds, to refuse recognition or enforcement of certain foreign judgments against Malta-licensed gaming companies.

That law has drawn scrutiny from the European Commission, the EU’s executive arm. On June 18, 2025, the Commission opened an infringement procedure against Malta, saying the country had failed to comply with EU rules on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments. In its press material, the Commission said it had acted “for failing to comply with its obligations under the Regulation on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments (Regulation (EU) 1215/2012) in the area of gambling.”

The practical result is that the next battle may not only be winning claims in players’ home courts, but collecting on them. As an example, a Maltese civil court reportedly refused on Jan. 30 to recognize and enforce an Austrian judgment ordering repayment of about 488,546.47 euros to a player, citing Malta’s public policy and Article 56A.

For now, the CJEU’s message is a legal clarification, not a payout order: home-country law will often apply, and EU law does not by itself protect a Malta-licensed operator from national gambling bans and the civil claims that can follow.