On January 15, 2026, the Court of Justice of the European Union delivered a ruling that directly affects Malta’s offshore iGaming model. The Court confirmed that players have the right to file claims against operators working without a local license under the laws of the player’s country of residence, rather than under the law of the operator’s licensing country.
This decision calls into question the legal framework on which Malta’s iGaming model has long relied.
Case background
🔵 Claimant: a player from Austria
🔵 Defendant: Titanium Brace Marketing (a subsidiary of SkillOnNet, in liquidation)
🔵 The company held a Maltese license but did not have a license in Austria
🔵 The claim was brought against two company directors, seeking recovery of gambling losses under Austrian law
🔵 Defendants' position: the dispute should be heard by a Maltese court, not an Austrian one
Court ruling
🔴 Key issue: which law applies when a player sues an operator that lacks a license in the player’s country
🔴 The Court stated that a player may rely on the laws of their home country when claiming compensation for operations conducted without local authorization
🔴 In online gambling, damage is deemed to occur where the player resides if the operator did not hold a local license
Why this is a blow to the Maltese model
🔵 Malta’s "offshore" logic has been based on the EU freedom to provide services as a foundation for operating across Europe
🔵 The ruling strengthens the position of countries that require local licensing, including claims for refunding player losses
🔵 Context matters: the EU is already seeing a wave of player lawsuits against operators, including in Germany, Austria, and the Netherlands
Bill 55 and what it was meant to protect
🔴 Bill 55 is a Maltese law that limits the recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments against Maltese B2C operators
🔴 It protects claims by players seeking refunds of losses if the activity was conducted under an MGA (Malta Gaming Authority) license
🔴 Bill 55 is controversial and already being challenged at the EU level; the new court ruling increases pressure on this framework
Conclusion
The EU Court’s decision reduces the value of the Maltese license as a "single base" for operating across Europe. In the absence of a local license, disputes may be assessed under the rules of the player’s country, and an MGA license no longer fully guarantees protection against such claims. For the Maltese model, this means higher risks and increased uncertainty surrounding Bill 55.
Case background
🔵 Claimant: a player from Austria
🔵 Defendant: Titanium Brace Marketing (a subsidiary of SkillOnNet, in liquidation)
🔵 The company held a Maltese license but did not have a license in Austria
🔵 The claim was brought against two company directors, seeking recovery of gambling losses under Austrian law
🔵 Defendants' position: the dispute should be heard by a Maltese court, not an Austrian one
Court ruling
🔴 Key issue: which law applies when a player sues an operator that lacks a license in the player’s country
🔴 The Court stated that a player may rely on the laws of their home country when claiming compensation for operations conducted without local authorization
🔴 In online gambling, damage is deemed to occur where the player resides if the operator did not hold a local license
Why this is a blow to the Maltese model
🔵 Malta’s "offshore" logic has been based on the EU freedom to provide services as a foundation for operating across Europe
🔵 The ruling strengthens the position of countries that require local licensing, including claims for refunding player losses
🔵 Context matters: the EU is already seeing a wave of player lawsuits against operators, including in Germany, Austria, and the Netherlands
Bill 55 and what it was meant to protect
🔴 Bill 55 is a Maltese law that limits the recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments against Maltese B2C operators
🔴 It protects claims by players seeking refunds of losses if the activity was conducted under an MGA (Malta Gaming Authority) license
🔴 Bill 55 is controversial and already being challenged at the EU level; the new court ruling increases pressure on this framework
Conclusion
The EU Court’s decision reduces the value of the Maltese license as a "single base" for operating across Europe. In the absence of a local license, disputes may be assessed under the rules of the player’s country, and an MGA license no longer fully guarantees protection against such claims. For the Maltese model, this means higher risks and increased uncertainty surrounding Bill 55.