The judicial scales in European player loss claims cases are irreversibly tipping towards the consumer side. This week, the European Court ruled in Case C-440/23, clarifying that member states have the right to initiate legal proceedings against operators who do not comply with their gambling laws, while opening the door for players to recover losses from operators established in other member states. This is the third ruling on player loss issues by the European Court in recent months, following the January ruling in Case C-77/24 (Austrian player vs. Malta-licensed operator) and the March opinion of the Advocate General in the German Tipico case, forming an increasingly clear judicial thread. Dr. Terence Cassar, a partner at Malta GTG Law Firm, accurately commented that this ruling itself is not particularly novel, but linking the three cases together, the underlying logic of European judges has been clearly revealed: the EU cannot and should not override the local licensing systems of member states. What really stirs the industry's nerves is the upcoming opinion of the Advocate General on April 23 in Case C-683/24, which will directly question the legal foundation of Malta's Article 56A.
From C-77/24 to C-440/23: A Single Thread Through Three Rulings
Pulling the timeline back to January this year, the first domino fell in Case C-77/24. An Austrian player, under the country's gambling monopoly system, filed a loss recovery lawsuit against a Malta-licensed operator. The European Court ruled that such cases should be judged according to the gambling laws of the place and time where the losses occurred. For operators mired in claims, this was a heavy blow—they had always argued that they were protected by Maltese regulations, and that the Maltese license should take precedence over the gambling bans of the player's location. However, the European Court drew a clear boundary: the source of the license is not a talisman, and the sovereign will of the target market is the decisive variable.
In March, the Advocate General's opinion on the German Tipico case further reinforced this stance. The opinion clearly stated that operators must comply with the local rules of member states, as long as these rules are consistent with the EU principle of free movement. Tipico had argued that the regulatory framework in Germany at the time lacked transparency and was unfair, and emphasized that they had attempted to obtain a German license during the dispute period but were not approved. However, the Advocate General's opinion indicated that the unsuccessful license acquisition process is not a valid reason to evade local laws.
This week's C-440/23 ruling further solidifies this judicial stance. The case involved a German player who participated in virtual slot machines and lottery betting through two Malta-licensed companies from June 2019 to July 2021, at a time when Germany had a broad ban on online gambling. The European Court ruled that member states have full authority to prohibit certain forms of online gambling, even if the operator holds a legal license from another member state; contracts signed during the ban period can be deemed invalid, and players have the right to recover losses according to their national laws.
The Real Weight of 20,000 German-Austrian Claim Cases
The accumulation of judicial precedents is leveraging the heavy claim pressure on the ground. According to legal professionals in the industry, just in Germany and Austria, the backlog of player loss claim cases has already exceeded 20,000. These cases were mostly in a state of suspension, waiting for the European Court to clarify core legal issues. With the consecutive rulings of C-77/24, Tipico case opinion, and C-440/23, courts now have sufficient legal basis, and a large number of suspended cases are expected to enter substantive proceedings.
Klaus Hanbach, managing partner at Hamburg and Hamburg Law Firm, had already expressed to the media in April last year that the inconsistency of the German regulatory framework was so obvious that submitting a large number of cases to the European Court was almost inevitable. However, contrary to many operators' expectations, European judges did not attempt to use a unified EU scale to reconcile the rule conflicts between member states, but kicked the ball back to the local courts, repeatedly emphasizing "please comply with local laws." For those operators who have long relied on Maltese licenses to leverage the entire European market, this judicial stance means that every cross-border business needs to re-examine the regulatory barriers of the target market—Maltese licenses are no longer EU passes, but just a business license valid within Malta.
Article 56A Pending, April 23 Becomes a Critical Node
The shockwave of the triple rulings has not yet subsided, and the industry's nerves are already tense at the next time node. On April 23, the Advocate General of the European Court will issue an opinion on Case C-683/24, which will be a critical moment directly questioning the legality of Malta's Article 56A. Article 56A is the core provision of Malta's 2023 "Gambling Law Amendment," which prohibits Maltese courts from enforcing foreign judgments against gambling operators regarding player refunds, essentially serving as a legal firewall for Maltese-licensed operators against cross-border claims.
In June 2025, the European Commission formally wrote to the Maltese government, expressing concerns about whether this provision complies with EU law. Maltese Member of the European Parliament Peter Agius did not hide his concerns on LinkedIn, stating that this week's ruling "hit the gambling industry's freedom of movement like a ton of bricks," and frankly, although the ruling itself did not directly determine the effectiveness of Article 56A, it highlighted that cross-border gambling services are still exposed to conflicting national systems, and the legal certainty of operators is being systematically eroded.
PASA Official Website continues to track global gambling regulatory and judicial dynamics, noting that this series of rulings by the European Court is forcing a more fundamental issue to surface—whether the EU needs a unified gambling regulatory framework. Cassar explicitly supports establishing a gambling regulatory coordination mechanism at the EU level, and Agius also calls on social platforms to create a "true EU online gambling single market" and to adopt a coordinated European action on third-party litigation financing. Earlier this year, discussions around a unified EU gambling tax levy had already heated up, with stakeholders generally warning that the fragmentation of European gambling laws had reached an unsustainable point.
From C-77/24 to C-440/23, to the upcoming unveiling of C-683/24, the European Court is writing the same verdict with one ruling after another: in the reality where gambling regulation has not yet achieved EU-level coordination, the sovereign will of member states outweighs the convenience of cross-border licenses. For those operators accustomed to leveraging the entire European market with a Maltese license, the doors of the old era are closing one after another.
————
This article is from "PASA-Global iGaming Leaders," a gambling industry news channel: https://t.me/pasa_news
Original deep channel for gambling: https://t.me/gamblingdeep
Free data report: @pasa_research
PASA Matrix: @pasa002_bot
PASA Official Website: https://www.pasa.news
