European Court to rule on cross-border gambling dispute between Malta and Germany

A legal case that may reshape the online gambling framework across Europe is now under review at the European Court of Justice (ECJ), as tensions mount between national sovereignty and EU market principles.

The main part of the proceedings is Case C-440, originating from a 2021 lawsuit filed by a German player against Lottoland, a Malta-licensed operator. The plaintiff alleged he was able to gamble on Lottoland’s platform while residing in Germany, despite the company lacking the necessary German license at the time.

The lawsuit was later acquired by lawyer Volker Ramge, who broadened the complaint to include a wider group of German consumers. Ramge also expanded the legal challenge to encompass additional Malta-based operators accused of bypassing Germany’s regulatory framework.

In a move to clarify the legality of these operations, both parties jointly requested the European Court to rule on whether Germany’s Interstate Treaty on Gambling, in effect until 2021, complies with EU law.

The court is now tasked with analyzing this earlier version of Germany’s gambling legislation against the backdrop of EU principles, particularly those governing the free movement of services under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The Advocate General’s opinion is expected on July 10, 2025.

The complexity of the legal question has drawn attention across the continent, as the outcome could influence an estimated €1 billion ($1.14 billion) in claims within Germany and Austria alone.

A source of controversy is Malta’s Bill 55, enacted in 2023, which permits Maltese courts to reject enforcement of foreign judgments targeting MGA-licensed gambling companies. The Malta Gaming Authority has defended the law, asserting it protects licensed firms from litigation that “is not in line with Europe’s free market values.”

However, the legislation has sparked opposition from regulators and legal experts in other member states. Germany’s national regulator, the GGL, has labeled the law “incompatible with EU laws.” Critics argue that Bill 55 undermines judicial cooperation in the European Union and clashes with the TFEU by placing economic protectionism above established legal obligations.

“The Commission repeatedly emphasised that such cases must be handled with the utmost care,” Cocron remarked, reflecting the broader significance of the case. If the ECJ rules against Bill 55, Malta could face a surge of player compensation claims originating from other EU nations.

In parallel, the European Commission is reviewing the law’s compliance with EU standards. The Vienna Commercial Court has also escalated questions surrounding Bill 55 to the ECJ, signaling growing pressure for judicial clarity.