SBC News Voice of the Sports Betting Industry
The Malta Gaming Authority (MGA) has reiterated the government’s long-held viewpoint that international opposition to its ‘Bill 55’ legislation violates the principles of free trade across the EU.
Introduced in 2023, Article 56A of Malta’s Gaming Act, commonly known as Bill 55, has been controversial. The Bill is essentially protectionist in nature, serving to safeguard Malta’s extensive gaming industry against international regulatory enforcement actions.
Malta is arguably the biggest gaming hub in Europe, with the sector accounting for around one-tenth of the country’s annual GDP. Licences with the MGA are used as a ‘point-of-supply licence’, in the regulator’s words, meaning holders can use the licence to operate in other regulated gaming jurisdictions.
“This means that operators licensed in Malta can offer their services on a cross-border basis, provided they have a justifiable legal basis for doing so and that they continue to comply with the Maltese regulatory framework,” the MGA’s recent statement read.
“The Maltese gaming framework is committed to promoting responsible gambling and safeguarding all players, regardless of their country of residence.
“In fact, the MGA’s regulatory framework establishes various requirements, such as protecting player funds, safeguarding minors and vulnerable persons, providing responsible gambling tools to prevent gambling related-harm and ensuring that gaming services are advertised fairly.”
The perils of international licensing?
The fact that many Maltese-based-and-licensed betting companies operate throughout Europe does open these same firms up to regulatory scrutiny, however. This has been seen in the Nordics and more recently in Austria, Germany and the Netherlands.
In Austria, court decisions ruling in favour of Austrian players filing claims against Malta-licensed companies were subsequently challenged and rejected by Maltese courts, prompting somewhat of an international outcry.
The German regulator, the GGL, has called on the European Commission to assess the law’s compatibility with existing EU frameworks. The regulator summarised its opinion of Bill 55 as being “that this law should not be compatible with European requirements for the recognition of decisions”.
Meanwhile, both politicians and lawyers in the Netherlands have taken aim at the law. Some Dutch MPs proposed a motion in the country’s parliament back in April that would require the government to ‘tackle, bilaterally and at European level …. EU member states that facilitate providers in avoiding their legal liability’.
Generally speaking, overseas regulators have attacked Bill 55 as protecting Maltese licensed gaming firms which violate regulations and rules in the countries they operate in. Malta is countering this by arguing that gambling regulatory framework fits in line with the principles of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).
The country’s regulator asserts that the overseas actions are ‘unjustified restrictions – whether direct or indirect’ which impact on the country’s gaming operators’ ability to freely provide services on the EU’s internal market.
Authorities in other EU nations – namely Germany and Austria but also clearly the Netherlands and other nations – are just as adamant that Bill 55 infringes on their own regulatory frameworks, however. The debate is certainly showing no signs of calming down any time soon.
