for early access to the latest igaming videos!
and get the latest igaming news first!
A long-running dispute over whether Austrian players can pursue loss-recovery claims against Malta-licensed online gambling operators took a fresh turn on Thursday. The Court of Justice of the European Union said Austrian law can govern a claim tied to gambling losses suffered in Austria, even when the operator was licensed in another member state.
The case was brought to light when an Austrian consumer who brought proceedings linked to play on drueckglueck.com, a site operated under a Maltese licence but without authorisation to offer online gambling in Austria. The operator, Titanium Brace Marketing Ltd, later became insolvent, pushing the dispute into questions of cross-border liability and which national rules apply when losses are claimed back.
Austria’s Supreme Court referred parts of the dispute to the EU court to clarify how the Rome II Regulation applies to non-contractual claims connected to online gambling.
In an online gambling setting, where does the harm occur?
The EU court’s interpretation points to the player’s location. The reasoning is that the financial loss and the consumer-protection interest materialise where the player lives and participates, not where the operator is based or licensed.
One line from the court’s guidance captures the direction of travel:
“the law applicable… shall be the law of the country in which the damage occurs.”
That approach means Austrian law can apply to the loss claim as a non-contractual obligation, allowing the player to pursue the case under Austrian tort principles, even though the gambling activity was organised through a Maltese licence.
However, if a tort is “manifestly more closely connected” to another country, judges can still shift to that law. But the default position in this fact pattern points home.
The EU court is answering how EU law should be read, not issuing a final judgment on damages
The Austrian court will still decide the outcome, but it must do so using the EU court’s interpretation.
Even so, lawyers and operators have treated this line of cases as a bellwether because it affects a wider wave of claims in Europe, especially in countries where national rules restrict who can offer online casino products.
A similar loss-recovery dispute has been teed up from Germany, including a case referred from the Regional Court of Gießen involving Lottoland (C-440/23), where arguments around cross-border licensing, restitution, and EU principles have also come into focus.
Malta’s Bill 55 remains the political flashpoint
The ruling also have a connection with Malta’s controversial “Bill 55,” now Article 56A of the Maltese Gaming Act, which was introduced to limit the recognition and enforcement of certain foreign judgments against Malta-licensed gaming companies where the underlying activity was lawful under Maltese regulation.
That move drew pushback across the EU. In June 2025, the European Commission opened infringement proceedings against Malta, sending a formal notice linked to the provision.
Malta’s regulator has defended the law as not being a blanket immunity shield. The Malta Gaming Authority has said Article 56A does not prevent companies from being sued abroad and does not impose a universal ban on enforcing European judgments, framing it instead as consistent with public policy protections in EU enforcement rules.
The next milestone is in the national courts
Austria’s Supreme Court now has the EU court’s map. The remaining question is how far it follows that route, and how quickly other jurisdictions adopt the same approach in their own loss-recovery cases.
Thursday’s guidance strengthens the hand of claimants arguing that losses suffered at home should be assessed under their home consumer-protection framework. This is a result Austria has been seeking in multiple disputes involving offshore-licensed operators.
For operators licensed in Malta and active across Europe, it adds pressure in two directions at once: more exposure to claims litigated under local law in players’ home states, and continued scrutiny from Brussels over whether national “shield” provisions can coexist with EU rules on mutual recognition and enforcement.
Source: SBC News
