PLAYER CLAIMS
reshape it. For players, this means a stronger position at the stage of establishing liability, but without removing the key obstacle, effective enforcement against operators based in jurisdictions such as Malta. As a result, litigation strategies may increasingly focus on forum selection and on identifying operator assets outside the country of establishment, where enforcement remains realistically possible. Bill 55 and the limits of mutual recognition in gambling disputes A separate piece of the puzzle is Malta’s legislative response to the growing number of claims brought by players from other Member States. Known as ‘Bill 55’, this reform introduced a new Article 56A into the Malta Gaming Act in 2023. The measure is designed as a systemic defence against restitution claims pursued against Malta-based operators. Its core lies in two closely linked mechanisms. First, it renders inadmissible before Maltese courts any claims that challenge the legality of activities carried out by operators licensed in Malta. Second, it creates a basis for refusing the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments ordering the repayment of gambling losses, where those judgments rely on the application of another Member State’s law to activities conducted from Malta. The significance of Bill 55 goes beyond its literal wording. In a broader sense, it is a legislative response to a very specific trend: the wave of mass litigation in Austria and Germany, where courts have held that the absence of a local licence renders gambling contracts invalid and triggers an obligation to repay stakes. Malta, as one of the key European licensing hubs for online gambling operators, has long played an important role in providing a legal framework for conducting such activities in a compliant manner. In this context, the effects of these judgments began to pose a real challenge to the stability of the sector. Bill 55 can therefore be seen as an attempt to address uncertainty in private law relationships through the use of public law instruments. From the player’s perspective, the consequences are significant. While Bill 55 does not prevent obtaining a favourable judgment, it substantially complicates its enforcement. In practice, this means that litigation strategy must take additional factors into account. It becomes important not only where to bring
the claim, but also where the operator’s assets are located and can be effectively enforced against. Increasing attention may therefore be given to issues such as corporate structures, the location of bank accounts, the role of payment service providers, and connections with jurisdictions that do not apply similar restrictions. In other words, disputes over the recovery of gambling losses may evolve beyond questions of contract validity and begin to include elements typical of cross-border enforcement proceedings. A recent illustration of how claimants may seek to overcome the obstacles created by Bill 55 is the CJEU’s judgment in TQ v Mr Green Limited in Case C-198/24 5 . The case concerned the use of a European Account Preservation Order (EAPO), a cross-border instrument that allows creditors to freeze funds held in bank accounts located in other Member States before enforcement is frustrated. The Court confirmed that, when assessing whether such a preservation order is justified, national courts may take into account not only the debtor’s past conduct but also the existence of legislation capable of hindering enforcement, including Malta’s Bill 55. As a result, the judgment strengthens the ability of successful claimants to secure assets located outside Malta at an early stage of enforcement proceedings and demonstrates that attempts to shield operators from foreign judgments may be countered through EU-wide procedural mechanisms. The case therefore highlights how disputes over gambling losses are increasingly shifting from questions of substantive gambling law towards sophisticated strategies of cross-border asset tracing, preservation and enforcement. Difficulties with the enforcement of judgments are likely to persist as long as Bill 55 remains in force and continues to be applied by Maltese courts. The regulation has raised concerns among other Member States regarding its compatibility with EU law, in particular with the principle of sincere cooperation and the mechanisms established under the Brussels I bis Regulation, which are based on mutual trust and the automatic recognition of judgments across the Union. These concerns are no longer purely theoretical. The issue has recently been addressed, at least indirectly, in the Opinion of the Advocate General in Case C-683/24 of 23 April 2026 6 , which considered the permissibility of national rules limiting the recognition of foreign judgments in gambling-related disputes. Although such an opinion is not binding, it provides an important indication of
5 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A62024CN0198&qid=1781104294042 6 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62024CC0683
IMGL MAGAZINE | JUNE 2026
PAGE 27
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker