PLAYER CLAIMS
the possible direction of future case law and often signals how the Court may balance competing principles, in this context, the regulatory autonomy of Member States and the integrity of the EU system for the recognition of judgments. From this perspective, Bill 55 can be seen as a measure operating at the edge of what may be justified under the public policy exception. If the Court follows the logic outlined in the Advocate General’s Opinion, it may more clearly challenge solutions that, in a general and systematic way, exclude entire categories of judgments from the EU recognition regime. This, in turn, could limit the practical effectiveness of the Maltese ‘shield’ and restore greater predictability to cross-border enforcement of claims. Until such clarification is provided, however, Bill 55 remains a real litigation risk in actions brought against Malta-based operators. Conclusion T he emerging line of CJEU case law paints a relatively coherent, though not entirely clear-cut, picture of disputes between players and Malta- based online gambling operators. The Court strengthens the position of players at the stage of determining liability in principle: it confirms the application of the law of the consumer’s country, accepts the civil law consequences of breaching national gambling restrictions, and limits the effectiveness of defences based on the freedom to provide services. At the same time, it does not create a uniform EU framework for pursuing such claims. Key elements, such as the grounds for contract invalidity or the scope of restitution, remain governed by national law. As a result, these disputes continue to develop in a decentralised yet increasingly predictable way: they are largely built around unjust enrichment claims, while their outcome depends on domestic standards of consumer protection. In this context, a further increase in such disputes can reasonably be expected, not only in Austria and Germany, which have so far been the main
epicentres, but also in other Member States. Particular attention should be paid to the Polish market, which, due to its size and relatively restrictive regulatory model, may become one of the key areas for future claims. Polish law, including the concept of invalidity of acts contrary to statutory provisions and claims based on unjust enrichment, provides a legal framework similar to that seen in Austria and Germany. Combined with growing legal awareness among players and the activity of specialized entities pursuing such claims, this may lead to a gradual spread of this type of litigation across additional jurisdictions. This does not, however, change the fundamental limitation shaping the entire phenomenon, which is Malta’s Bill 55. While the measure does not prevent players from obtaining a favourable judgment, it significantly undermines its enforceability in practice. As a result, the effectiveness of player claims depends less on their legal merits and more on factors such as the location of the operator’s assets or the possibility of enforcing judgments outside Malta. In this sense, these disputes are no longer purely consumer claims. Instead, they increasingly resemble complex, multi-layered cross-border proceedings, where substantive law and enforcement are closely intertwined. It is also worth noting a more long-term effect of this trend. The growing risk of civil liability, combined with uncertainty around enforcement, may begin to influence the behaviour of operators themselves. A Maltese licence, once seen as a stable and predictable foundation for operating within Europe, may no longer serve as a ‘safe harbour’. As a result, some operators may consider relocating their activities to non-EU jurisdictions, such as Curaçao, where the risk of cross-border claims and, importantly, their effective enforcement, is significantly lower. Paradoxically, therefore, the rise of restitution claims within the European Union, while strengthening consumer protection, may in the longer term weaken the ability of Member States to exercise effective control over the online gambling market, by pushing part of that market outside the EU regulatory framework.
MAREK PLOTA Managing Partner, RM Legal For more information contact marek.plota@rmlegal.pl +48 71 716 58 22.
PAGE 28
IMGL MAGAZINE | JUNE 2026
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker