**The Ruling and Its Context**
The ruling, delivered on 27 February, supported Malta-licensed operators that conducted business in Austria’s market without a local license. The court found that previous Austrian judgments contradicted Maltese public policy.
Austria’s online gambling scene is dominated by monopoly operator Casinos Austria, with its Win2Day offering currently being the only licensed online product in the country.
Both Austria and Germany have seen several high-profile claims where players tried to reclaim losses from offshore operators, deemed illegal in these markets.
Players gambling outside the monopoly have at times successfully claimed back losses from illegal operators. In contrast, some have had to repay winnings to unlicensed operators. Many of these cases involve operators licensed in Malta.
**Malta Judgment**
The Maltese ruling concerns a case from 2020, where a player lost €38,325 ($39,845/£31,653) with Malta-licensed European Lotto and Betting Limited, operating as Lottoland.
An Austrian court previously ruled the betting party could recover their losses due to the operator’s illegality in the market. The case was escalated by the Malta Gambling Authority (MGA).
Malta’s courts argued that Article 56 in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) provides for services, such as online gambling, to be offered across EU states.
This acts as a “primary source of community law” which serves as a “fundamental rule of the legal order” for both the EU and Malta.
Malta’s court also contended that Austria’s federal law on games of chance and its online gaming monopoly contradicts the TFEU.
The Maltese court has thus refused to enforce the Austrian judgments, citing them as contrary to Maltese public policy.
Davinia Cutajar, legal partner at WH Partners, representing the MGA, stated the decision has significant implications for the gambling industry, reinforcing the autonomy of Maltese regulatory authorities and the jurisdiction of Maltese courts over gambling matters.
Cutajar noted that Austria’s monopoly’s compliance with EU law has been questioned on several occasions.
She pointed out in a firm statement that multiple rulings from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) have supported the stance that Austria’s monopoly model violates Article 56 of the TFEU.
In a statement, Nigel Birrell, Lottoland’s group CEO, hailed Malta’s decision as it confirmed the operator’s previously held position on the matter.
**Past Austrian Decisions**
In 2021, the Austrian Supreme Court ruled that foreign igaming brands were operating illegally in the country, invalidating player contracts and prompting players to reclaim their losses.
This decision affected Betclic Everest subsidiary Bet-at-home, which was ordered to pay €2.8m in player losses nearly three years after withdrawing from the market.
In a separate case, an Austrian customer was ordered to return winnings to an unnamed unlicensed operator in the market. The courts concluded that both the player and the operator had violated Austrian gambling laws, rendering their contract invalid.
The ruling decreed that both parties knowingly operated illegally, requiring the player to cover the operator’s legal fees.
**Austrian Online Gambling Liberalisation**
Such player disputes involving Austria and Maltese-based operators could diminish in the future as Austria potentially ends its online casino monopoly.
Casinos Austria has a 15-year license with a monopoly on online gambling, expiring on 30 September 2027. Austrian authorities are expected to initiate the license tendering process this year.
Austrian Betting and Gaming Association VP Simon Priglinger-Simader expressed optimism for the first time that Austria’s online gambling might move away from the monopoly.
In December, the European Gambling and Betting Association (EGBA) president’s secretary general, Maarten Haijer, advocated for Austria to open its online gambling market.
Haijer stated, “The evidence from across Europe is clear and compelling: multi-licensing works. It brings gambling activity into the regulated market, protects consumers, and generates significant tax revenue.”
The Maltese Civil Court has decided not to enforce Austrian court judgments that favored players receiving refunds for gambling on sites without a local license.