Player losses cases in Europe turned a corner this week as the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled European member states were within their right to initiate legal proceedings against operators for not adhering to their gambling laws.
It also gave the go-ahead to further player-losses cases by ruling in favour of consumers bringing claims for restitution of lost stakes against operators established in another member state from themselves, where the games of chance at issue were prohibited.
Legal experts across the sector have said this week’s ruling relating to case C-440/23 (FB vs European Lotto and Betting Ltd) is not surprising, but it will have implications for the burgeoning player losses landscape growing across Europe.
“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],” Dr Terence Cassar, partner at GTG law firm in Malta, told iGB.
“In recent months we have had a number of landmark rulings and so, taken together, this was expected.”
Previous ECJ cases also ruled in favour of local gambling rules
The decision is the third from the ECJ in recent months, which questions the validity of Malta’s Article 56, a piece of regulation within the market’s framework which has sought to protect Malta-licensed operators from litigation across Europe.
Back in January, another high-profile case (C-77/24), brought by a player in Austria, where a gambling monopoly is in place, ruled that player-losses cases in Europe should be tried based on local gambling laws at the time the losses were incurred.
This dealt a blow to operators embroiled in these losses cases, as they believe they were supported by Maltese regulations during those disputed periods. This, they have claimed, should trump the position of local gambling regulations at the location where the player accessed their products.
Then in March, another ECJ case against German operator Tipico served an opinion which again supported local licensing regimes within European member states. It said operators must adhere to these local rules, as long as they are in line with EU rules for free movement.
Tipico had argued that the German framework at the time of the dispute was unfair and lacked transparency. It had also sought to obtain a German licence during the contested period but was not granted one.
While the details for each case differ slightly, the overarching response from European judges is that the EU should not and cannot overrule local licensing requirements around gaming.
Implications for Malta’s Article 56A
Another Advocate General’s opinion is expected on 23 April for Case C-683/24. This, Cassar says, will have real implications for Article 56A as it is considering the legality of the piece of legislation which is contested by the EU.
In June 2025 the European Commission wrote a formal letter to Malta’s government over concerns Article 56A does not comply with European law.
Taking to his LinkedIn page today, MEP for Malta Peter Agius said the latest ruling “hit free movement in gaming [like] a tonne of bricks”.
“While the ruling does not rule on the validity of Malta’s [Article 56A] it underlines that cross-border services in gaming remain exposed to conflicting national regimes – undermining legal certainty for operators,” he continued.
Cassar believes there is a need for an EU-level gambling framework to address these issues at a European level.
The discussion around harmonising EU regulations has become louder in recent years as markets struggle to mitigate black market growth. Talks around an EU-level tax levy were raised earlier this year and stakeholders warned laws on the continent are far too fragmented.
In his post, Agius also seemed to support a single European framework, adding: “I reiterate my earlier calls for a true EU single market in online gaming and a coordinated European action on third-party litigation funding.”
How did player losses cases get here?
When a number of player losses cases were elevated to the ECJ in 2025, lawyers working with the sector on upwards of 20,000 cases brought by players across Germany and Austria hoped European-level judges would be able to decipher how German gambling laws should be interpreted, at a European level.
Claus Hambach, managing partner at German law firm Hambach and Hambach, told iGB in April last year that there had been many indications why cases should be referred “because the inconsistency of the German regulation is rather obvious”.
After years of battling regional and national courts in the market, lawyers had hoped that by reaching the ECJ, the legal uncertainties presented by these cases would be resolved. But largely, European judges have referred back to local regulations and told regional courts to uphold local laws.
Nicole Macedo
Nicole cut her teeth in local news rooms at home in Gibraltar, and helped to establish the peninsula’s first online-only broadcaster.
Original article: https://igamingbusiness.com/legal-compliance/latest-ecj-ruling-deals-further-blow-as-player-losses-green-lit/
