Newest ECJ ruling delivers another setback as player-losses cases are greenlit, implications of Article 56A still loom

(AsiaGameHub) –   European player-loss litigation reached a pivotal moment this week after the European Court of Justice (ECJ) determined that member states have the authority to sue operators for violating local gambling regulations.

The court also paved the way for additional restitution claims by supporting consumers who sue operators based in other member states for losses incurred on prohibited games.

Industry legal experts note that while the decision in case C-440/23 (FB vs European Lotto and Betting Ltd) was expected, it will significantly impact the expanding player-loss litigation environment in Europe.

“Primarily, I view this as a landmark ruling. However, I agree with the consensus that, fundamentally, there isn’t anything inherently new in this decision,” stated Dr Terence Cassar, a partner at Malta’s GTG law firm, in an interview with iGB.

“We have seen several landmark rulings in recent months, so collectively, this outcome was anticipated.”

Earlier ECJ judgments have similarly upheld local gambling regulations

This marks the ECJ’s third ruling in recent months that casts doubt on Malta’s Article 56, a regulation designed to shield Malta-licensed operators from lawsuits throughout Europe.

In January, a prominent case (C-77/24) from Austria, which operates a gambling monopoly, established that such cases should be adjudicated based on the local laws applicable when the losses occurred.

This was a setback for operators involved in these disputes, who argued that Maltese regulations governing the relevant periods should override the local laws where the players were located.

Subsequently, in March, an ECJ opinion regarding German operator Tipico reinforced the primacy of local licensing regimes, stating operators must comply with them provided they align with EU free movement principles.

Tipico had contended that the German regulatory framework at the time was opaque and unfair, noting that it had attempted but failed to secure a German license during the period in question.

Although the specifics vary, the consistent message from European judges is that the EU lacks the authority to override local gaming licensing requirements.

Consequences for Malta’s Article 56A

An Advocate General’s opinion regarding Case C-683/24 is due on 23 April. Cassar notes this will directly affect Article 56A, as it assesses the legality of the legislation challenged by the EU.

In June 2025, the European Commission sent a formal letter to Malta’s government expressing concerns that Article 56A violates European law.

Maltese MEP Peter Agius commented on LinkedIn today that the recent ruling struck a heavy blow against free movement in gaming.

“Although the ruling does not address the validity of Malta’s Article 56A, it highlights that cross-border gaming services face conflicting national regulations, which erodes legal certainty for operators,” he added.

Cassar argues that an EU-wide gambling framework is necessary to resolve these issues on a continental scale.

Calls for harmonizing EU regulations have intensified as member states struggle to curb the black market. Discussions regarding an EU-wide tax levy emerged earlier this year, with stakeholders warning that the continent’s laws are excessively fragmented.

In his post, Agius also endorsed a unified European framework, stating: “I repeat my calls for a genuine EU single market for online gaming and coordinated European action on third-party litigation funding.”

The evolution of player-loss litigation

When numerous player-loss cases were escalated to the ECJ in 2025, lawyers handling over 20,000 claims from German and Austrian players hoped European judges would clarify the interpretation of German gambling laws at the EU level.

Claus Hambach, managing partner at Hambach and Hambach in Germany, told iGB last April that there were strong reasons for referring the cases, citing the “obvious inconsistency” of German regulations.

Following years of litigation in regional and national courts, lawyers had hoped the ECJ would resolve the legal ambiguities. However, European judges have largely deferred to local regulations, instructing regional courts to enforce domestic laws.