The Advocate General of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has stated that consumers who played on unlicensed gambling platforms from other EU Member States may seek to recover their losses under national law.
The opinion was issued in the pending case C-440/23 (FB v European Lotto and Betting Ltd and Deutsche Lotto Und Sportwetten Ltd).
The dispute concerns the application of national law in cross-border gambling cases and requires clarification in the context of EU law.
The case originated from 2019 to 2021, when a German player filed a claim against Lottoland, arguing that participating in online slot games violated German law.
In 2023, after no progress was made in the initial proceedings, he assigned his claims to a new legal representative (FB), who subsequently filed a new lawsuit in the Maltese courts, seeking compensation from operators licensed in Malta.
The Maltese courts referred the case to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) for legal review, as key clarifications were needed regarding the compatibility of national gambling laws with EU law, particularly the freedom to provide services under Article 56 TFEU.
Tensions around this longstanding dispute continue, as a final decision has not yet been reached. At the same time, the Advocate General confirmed the legality of the case, noting that it does not breach EU law.
Although the Advocate General’s opinion is not binding, it serves as guidance for the CJEU’s future ruling; the final verdict will be delivered by the judges.
The opinion also directly relates to two cases in which players from Germany and Austria filed claims against Maltese-licensed operators seeking reimbursement of losses.
A key argument of the Maltese operators’ defense is the framework of European freedom of movement. Nevertheless, the Advocate General concluded that the players’ appeal does not contravene EU rules.
Additionally, Bill 55, which strengthens the protection of Maltese operators from international legal claims from other jurisdictions, is under discussion. The recent ruling further intensifies the dispute between Germany and Malta over the bill and highlights legislative instability between the two countries.
Previously, the MGA stated that the bill is intended to protect Maltese operators from “baseless legal challenges.”
The German regulator continues to call for a review of Bill 55, noting: “We are of the opinion that this law should not be compatible with European requirements for the recognition of decisions (Regulation (EU) 1215/2002).
“However, the final assessment of this question is not the responsibility of the GGL. We have informed the federal states of our assessment and are otherwise in contact with the relevant authorities.”
A final decision in the case is expected this autumn.
Don’t forget to subscribe to our Telegram channel!
