EU Court Ruling Lets Players Use Home Law to Sue Malta‑Licensed Operators
Expertise: US Gaming, European Gaming Industry, iGaming
LISTEN TO THIS ARTICLE:
The CJEU concluded that, in disputes over unlicensed gambling, the applicable law is normally that of the place where the harm occurred – which the court treats as the player’s residence. The decision directly affects business models that have relied on Maltese licences to serve customers across the EU without taking local authorisation in every member state.
At the centre of the case was a dispute involving Titanium Brace Marketing, a subsidiary of SkillOnNet now in liquidation, whose customer in Austria sought to recover gambling losses and to hold two company directors personally liable under Austrian law. Although Titanium held a licence from the Malta Gaming Authority, it did not hold a licence in Austria. Austrian courts found that the player’s losses should be regarded as occurring in Austria and therefore governed by Austrian consumer protection and criminal provisions that prohibit unlicensed gambling.
Malta’s domestic legislation, commonly referred to as Bill 55, has long shielded B2C gaming operators from certain forms of director liability where activity is licensed by the Malta Gaming Authority. The CJEU’s interpretation threatens that shield by allowing national courts elsewhere in the EU to apply local rules to operators that target their residents without a local permit.
RELATED TOPICS: Regulation
