The European Court of Justice has ruled that consumers may seek restitution of gambling losses from operators licensed in another member state, where the games in question were prohibited under local law — the third successive ECJ decision to side with national regulatory frameworks over Malta’s cross-border licensing protections.
The ruling, handed down on 17 April and relating to case C-440/23 (FB vs European Lotto and Betting Ltd), found that EU member states are within their rights to initiate legal proceedings against operators that fail to comply with local gambling laws. It also confirmed that players may bring claims against such operators for the return of lost stakes, even where those operators held a licence from the Malta Gaming Authority.
Third Ruling in Months to Back Local Licensing
The decision follows two previous ECJ rulings that reached broadly the same conclusion. In January, case C-77/24 — brought by a player in Austria, where a gambling monopoly is in place — established that player losses disputes should be adjudicated under the local gambling laws in effect at the time the losses were incurred. That ruling directly challenged the position of Malta-licensed operators, who had argued their MGA authorisation provided cover against litigation in other jurisdictions.
In March, an Advocate General’s opinion in a case against German operator Tipico again supported local licensing regimes, provided those regimes comply with EU rules on free movement. Tipico had argued the German framework at the time of the dispute was opaque and inconsistent, and noted that it had attempted to obtain a German licence during the contested period without success.
Taken together, the three decisions signal that European courts will not use EU law to override national gambling regulations — a position that has significant consequences for the tens of thousands of player losses cases working through German and Austrian courts.
Legal Experts: Expected, but Still Significant
First of all, I do think it’s a landmark ruling. Having said that, I do subscribe to the general feeling that in reality, if you had to boil it down, there is nothing new in itself yet [from this ruling]. In recent months we have had a number of landmark rulings and so, taken together, this was expected.
That assessment came from Dr Terence Cassar, partner at GTG law firm in Malta, speaking to iGaming Business following the ruling. While he characterised the outcome as broadly anticipated, the cumulative weight of these decisions is reshaping the legal landscape for operators facing player claims across Europe. Lawyers working with the sector had hoped that referral to ECJ level would produce clarity on how German gambling law should be interpreted within the EU framework. Instead, European judges have consistently referred the matter back to national courts, instructing them to apply local rules.
Claus Hambach, managing partner at German firm Hambach and Hambach, noted previously that there had been strong indications for ECJ referral given what he described as the obvious inconsistency of the German regulatory framework at the time.
Article 56A: The Next Decision
The ruling does not directly address the validity of Malta’s Article 56A, the domestic provision within the MGA’s framework designed to shield Malta-licensed operators from cross-border litigation. That question is expected to be addressed — at least in part — by an Advocate General’s opinion due on 23 April in Case C-683/24.
The European Commission wrote formally to Malta’s government in June 2025 raising concerns that Article 56A does not comply with European law. The Commission’s position added institutional pressure to what had previously been an operator-led dispute.
MEP for Malta Peter Agius, responding to this week’s ruling, said it hit free movement in gaming “like a tonne of bricks.” He added that while the decision does not rule on Article 56A’s validity directly, it reinforces that cross-border gaming services remain exposed to conflicting national regimes, creating legal uncertainty for operators. Agius repeated his call for a true EU single market in online gaming and coordinated European action on third-party litigation funding.
Dr Cassar also identified the absence of an EU-level gambling framework as the underlying structural problem. The debate around regulatory harmonisation has grown louder across European markets in recent years, partly driven by concerns that fragmented national rules are pushing players toward unlicensed operators. Discussions around a coordinated EU-level gambling tax levy were raised earlier in 2026, and multiple stakeholders have warned that the current patchwork of national regimes is difficult to enforce consistently. Those arguments have gained further weight as the ECJ continues to defer to local law rather than provide a definitive European standard.
The Advocate General’s opinion on 23 April will not itself be binding, but it will indicate the likely direction of the ECJ’s final ruling on Article 56A’s compatibility with EU law — a decision that carries direct implications for operators holding MGA licences and facing active litigation across the continent. For operators and their legal teams, the 23 April date is now the next fixed point in what has become an extended and increasingly consequential legal process.
Source: iGaming Business
