Maltese Court Decision: Austrian Gamblers Unentitled to Recovery of Betting Losses
Going Head-to-Head: The Maltese Gambling Industry vs. Strict EU Countries
By Timm Schaffner | Edited by Angela Burke | Published on: 04.03.2025. Updated on: 29.04.2025.
The European Union is embroiled in a heated dispute with Malta over the latter's controversial gambling legislation. This conflicting stance between Malta and countries with rigorous gambling laws, such as Austria and Germany, has resulted in multiple court skirmishes and a potentially groundbreaking decision by the European Court of Justice (ECJ).
A Legal Battle Fueled by Malta's Bill 55
At the heart of the dispute is Malta’s Bill 55 (2023), which grants Maltese courts the power to block enforcement of foreign gambling-related judgments against Malta-licensed operators. Critics argue that this law clashes with European Union principles, undermining judicial cooperation and collaborative decision-making [5].
The ECJ is currently grappling with a legal challenge to Malta’s Bill 55. Originating from the German Gambling Regulator (GGL), the lawsuit alleges that the law violates EU treaties. The court is assessing whether the legislation infringes upon EU principles like the free movement of services and mutual recognition of judgments [5][3].
The financial stakes are high as an estimated €1 billion ($1.14 billion) in claims from Germany and Austria alone rest on the ruling. A potential invalidation of Malta’s Bill 55 could lead to a surge in compensation claims from players across the EU [5].
The Shifting Landscape for Litigation Funders
A new business model has emerged in recent years, where litigation funders seek out players who have lost money in online gambling. These players can assign their claims to these companies, who then initiate mass lawsuits. This approach is prevalent not only in Austria but also in Germany.
In the past, casino and sports betting providers have often opted for out-of-court settlements to bypass high court decisions, such as the Bundesgerichtshof (BGH) or Europäische Gerichtshof (EuGH). However, the ongoing legal battle between Malta and EU countries is pressuring litigation funders like Gamesright and RightNow.
The lengthy decision-making process of the ECJ and the Maltese jurisprudence could potentially cause liquidity problems for litigation funders, as they may have to wait extended periods before receiving payment after assigning the claims. Preliminary indications suggest that the litigation funder RightNow might be one of the first companies facing bankruptcy due to these prolonged proceedings.
As the dispute between Malta, Austria, and the European Union continues to escalate, the forthcoming ECJ ruling could fundamentally change the face of gambling-related litigation across the EU, directly impacting litigation funders’ strategies and revenue models.
[5] Information sourced from enrichment data: Overall analysis of the ongoing dispute between Malta and EU countries with strict gambling regulations, focusing on the legal challenge to Malta’s Bill 55, the European Commission’s review of the legislation’s compliance with EU laws, international backlash against the law, and its implications for litigation funders like Gamesright and RightNow. Emphasizes the potential sweeping changes to cross-border claims, funders’ risk exposure, and revenue models based on the ECJ’s judgment.
- What is the central issue in the dispute between Malta and EU countries with strict gambling laws? It's Malta’s Bill 55 (2023).
- Which foreign gambling-related judgments does Malta's Bill 55 aim to block, according to critics? Those against Malta-licensed operators.
- What EU principles do critics argue that Malta’s Bill 55 clashes with? Judicial cooperation and collaborative decision-making.
- Which organization has brought a legal challenge to Malta’s Bill 55? The German Gambling Regulator (GGL).
- If Malta’s Bill 55 is invalidated by the ECJ, what could happen to players across the EU? They could potentially file compensation claims amounting to an estimated €1 billion.
- What new business model has emerged in recent years involving litigation funders and online gambling losses? These companies fund mass lawsuits initiated by players who have lost money in online gambling.
- In which countries is this litigation funding approach prevalent? Both Austria and Germany.
- Which court decisions have casino and sports betting providers aimingly avoided by opting for out-of-court settlements in the past? The Bundesgerichtshof (BGH) or Europäische Gerichtshof (EuGH).
- What is the potential consequence of the ongoing legal battle between Malta and EU countries for litigation funders like Gamesright and RightNow? Possible bankruptcy, as they may face liquidity problems due to prolonged proceedings.
- What changes could the forthcoming ECJ ruling bring for litigation funders across the EU? It could fundamentally alter the landscape of gambling-related litigation, impacting their strategies and revenue models. Furthermore, it could have implications for skills training in responsible gambling and education-and-self-development, as well as trends in sports and sports betting, policy-and-legislation, politics, general-news, casino-personalities, casino-games, and lotteries.
