The European Court of Justice (ECJ) recently made a significant ruling on the case of losses suffered by Austrian players, clarifying that disputes over player losses within Europe must apply the local gambling laws of the player's location. The player involved lost 18,547.67 euros between 2019 and 2020 through the now-defunct operator TBM's brand. This judgment not only determined the ownership of the case but also cast doubt on the effectiveness of Malta's newly added Article 56A in 2023, with related EU gambling compliance guidelines available for reference on the PASA official website.
Decision Core: Local Law Priority, Loss Location Identified as Player's Residence
In case number C-77/24, the ECJ clearly defined the core rules, setting a standard for similar disputes:
Online gambling has no clear physical occurrence location, and the loss location is directly identified as the player's usual residence, which must prioritize local law;
The directors of the involved operator TBM had argued for the application of Maltese law (which does not require corporate executives to be liable), but the court rejected this claim, emphasizing that the actual losses occurred in Austria;
At the time of the ruling, Austria was implementing an online gambling monopoly, with only Casinos Austria holding a legal license, which became an important basis for the judgment.
This logic breaks the traditional understanding of "operator registration location law priority," providing a clear legal standard for gambling disputes within the EU.
Key Controversy: Malta's Article 56A Faces EU Legal Challenge
Malta's revised gambling law in 2023 added Article 56A, which has been put in an awkward position due to the ECJ ruling. This article was originally intended to protect operators holding a Maltese license, stipulating that Malta does not need to recognize judgments from other countries declaring its services illegal.
However, the European Commission had already written to the Maltese government in June, pointing out that this article violates EU law and undermines the principle of judicial mutual trust, and if not rectified, a compliance procedure would be initiated. The ECJ's ruling further weakens the actual effectiveness of Article 56A, catching cross-border operators relying on this clause off guard.
Industry Impact: Increased Cross-Border Compliance Pressure for Operators
The ECJ's ruling has triggered a chain reaction in the EU gambling industry, particularly impacting enterprises that rely on Maltese licenses for cross-border operations:
Operators need to thoroughly review the gambling laws of each operating location, develop differentiated compliance strategies for different countries, and face significantly increased compliance costs;
A large number of pending player loss cases will now apply local law en masse, increasing the likelihood of operator defeat and rising compensation risks;
Malta's attractiveness as a popular EU gambling license issuance location may decline, potentially leading to a restructuring of the compliance system in the industry.
Although Austria still maintains a gambling monopoly, it is expected that, driven by the ruling and market demand, the liberalization of its gambling market may accelerate.
————
This article is from "PASA-Global iGaming Leaders" gambling news channel:https://t.me/pasa_news
Original in-depth gambling channel:https://t.me/gamblingdeep
Free data reports: @pasa_research
PASA Matrix: @pasa002_bot
PASA official website: https://www.pasa.news
