The European Commission launched an infringement procedure against Malta over Article 56A of the Gaming Act, commonly known as ‘Bill 55’. The Commission claims the Maltese gambling law breaches EU rules on civil and commercial judgments by letting local courts routinely reject rulings from other EU countries, when it comes to online gaming disputes.
Bill 55, Brussels argues, undermines the EU’s legal system and mutual trust between Member States. “Malta is effectively shielding its online gaming sector from cross-border litigation,” the Commission said in a statement, adding that the country is misusing the public policy exception meant to be applied only in exceptional cases.
If Malta does not provide a satisfactory response within two months, the Commission may escalate the matter by issuing a reasoned opinion, step two in the EU’s infringement procedure, which can ultimately lead to a ruling by the European Court of Justice (ECJ).
Wave of lawsuits tests Malta’s legal defences
Bill 55 was introduced in 2023 in response to attempts by foreign courts to enforce judgments against Malta-licensed gaming operators. Courts in countries such as Austria and Germany have ordered these companies to refund player losses, arguing they were operating illegally within their national jurisdictions.
Hundreds of cases remain ongoing, with some now escalating to the European level. Increasing numbers of German players are suing to reclaim gambling losses from operators licensed in other European countries. With favourable court rulings and evolving regulations, a new legal service industry has emerged — offering free consultations, litigation funding, and a familiar model: bet, lose, sue, repeat.
The Maltese law, however, quickly stirred controversy, with critics claiming it allows operators to hide behind Malta’s legal system to avoid paying damages or facing enforcement in other EU countries.
From Malta’s point of view, however, the law was necessary to protect its industry from what it sees as unjust legal actions abroad, often from countries with more conservative stances on gambling.
After months of scrutiny, the European Commission now appears ready to act against Bill 55, taking the first step toward requesting its withdrawal by issuing a formal notice of infringement to Malta.
At stake: free movement of services in the digital era
Shortly after the Commission’s notice, the Malta Gaming Authority (MGA) issued its own statement defending Bill 55 and pushing back against the Commission’s claims.
The MGA stressed that Malta’s entire gaming framework was built on a point-of-supply model—meaning companies licensed in Malta can offer services across borders, as long as they follow the rules. This model, Malta argues, supports the EU’s core values: free movement of services and freedom of establishment.
And while Malta has long been at odds with more restrictive Member States, the MGA insisted that it’s those restrictions—not Malta’s rules—that break with EU law.
“ For over 20 years, Malta has consistently challenged any unjustifiably restrictive approaches adopted, in line with Malta’s public policy in the online gaming sector,” the MGA said.
Moreover, the MGA reiterated that Malta “is committed to promoting responsible gambling and safeguarding all players, regardless of their country of residence.”
MGA defends Malta’s position
Asserting further its alignment with EU principles, the MGA noted that “Malta has consistently maintained the position that its gaming regulatory framework is in line with the principles established by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).” According to the MGA, Bill 55 does not block European court rulings across the board, nor does it prevent people from suing Maltese-licensed operators in Malta or elsewhere.
Instead, the MGA argues that the law “confirms Malta’s long-standing public policy on online gaming and reflects existing rules under EU law – specifically the ordre public exception in the Brussels I Recast Regulation.” It stresses that Bill 55 “does not introduce new or separate grounds to reject foreign judgments.”
Countdown begins as EC awaits Malta’s response
Malta has until mid-August to reply to the Commission’s concerns. If the response doesn’t satisfy Brussels, the case could head to the European Court of Justice (ECJ), where a binding judgment could follow. If Malta still refuses to comply, financial penalties might be imposed.
For now, the MGA says it will continue to work with the government and hold “open and constructive dialogue” with the Commission. But behind the diplomatic tone, it’s clear that neither side is backing down easily.
