**Malta Ruling Backs Operators Against Austrian Monopoly**
The ruling delivered on 27 February favored Malta-licensed operators doing business in Austria without a local license. The court found previous Austrian judgments to be contrary to Maltese public policy.
Austria’s online gambling market is dominated by the monopoly operator Casinos Austria, with its Win2Day platform being the only licensed online product in the country.
Similar to Germany, the market has seen high-profile claims of player losses where players attempted to reclaim losses from offshore operators deemed illegal in these regions.
Players gambling outside this monopoly have experienced mixed outcomes, with some recovering losses from illegal operators and others having to return winnings to unlicensed operators. Many involved operators are licensed in Malta.
## Malta Judgment
The recent Maltese ruling relates to a player who, in 2020, lost €38,325 ($39,845/£31,653) through European Lotto and Betting Limited, operating as Lottoland, which is Malta-licensed.
An Austrian court had previously decided the player could reclaim their losses due to the operator’s illegal status in the market. However, the case was reviewed by a local court upon the Malta Gambling Authority’s (MGA) request.
Maltese courts cited EU Article 56 from the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which allows services, such as online gambling, to be offered across EU states. This article is considered a fundamental rule of the legal order for both the EU and Malta.
The court further argued that Austria’s federal law on games of chance and its monopoly on online gaming are in violation of the TFEU. Consequently, the Maltese court refused to enforce the Austrian judgments as they oppose Maltese public policy.
Davinia Cutajar, legal partner at WH Partners, representing the MGA, stated that the decision holds significant implications for the gambling industry. It “reinforces the autonomy of Maltese regulatory authorities and the jurisdiction of Maltese courts over gambling-related matters.”
She also highlighted concerns regarding the Austrian monopoly’s compliance with EU law, which has been questioned multiple times. Numerous rulings from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) support the view that Austria’s monopoly model violates Article 56 of the TFEU.
In a statement, Nigel Birrell, group CEO of Lottoland, welcomed Malta’s landmark decision, asserting it reinforced the operator’s stance on the matter.
## Past Austrian Decisions
In 2021, after the Austrian Supreme Court ruled against foreign igaming brands operating illegally in the nation, player contracts were declared invalid, and players sought to reclaim losses.
This decision impacted Betclic Everest subsidiary Bet-at-home, which was ordered to reimburse €2.8m in player losses nearly three years post its market withdrawal.
In another case last year, an Austrian customer had to return their winnings to an unlicensed operator. The courts determined both parties violated Austrian gambling laws, rendering their contract invalid. The player was also required to cover the operator’s court fees.
## Austrian Online Gambling Facing Liberalization
These player disputes involving Austria and Maltese-based operators could become less frequent as Austria appears poised to end its online casino monopoly.
Casinos Austria, holding a 15-year license and a monopoly on online gambling, will have its license expire on 30 September 2027. Austrian authorities are anticipated to initiate the tendering process for new licenses this year.
Simon Priglinger-Simader, VP of the Austrian Betting and Gaming Association, expressed optimism that Austria’s online gambling might soon move away from the monopoly system.
Last December, Maarten Haijer, European Gambling and Betting Association (EGBA) president secretary general, advocated for Austria to liberalize online gambling, stating, “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 ruled it would not enforce Austrian court judgments favoring players who sought refunds from gambling on sites without local licenses.