Malta's Controversial Move: Shielding Gaming Operators from Foreign Judgments

The enactment of Bill 55 in Malta, signed into law this June, has stirred dissatisfaction among several European authorities. The law's provision, which shields Malta licensed gaming operators from foreign judgments, has raised concerns about its compatibility with EU regulations. The German gaming regulator (GGL) has openly criticised the bill, citing potential conflicts with EU law, and awaits the European Commission's stance on this contentious matter.

The implications of this new law are far-reaching, especially for players. With this law in place, seeking justice through local courts becomes an arduous task. Foreign court rulings won't hold sway within Malta's jurisdiction, rendering them unenforceable. As a result, players face the prospect of investing their time and resources in legal pursuits that yield no tangible results.

The motivation behind Bill 55 appears linked to instances where German and Austrian courts mandated operators under the Malta Gaming Authority (MGA) to reimburse players for their incurred losses. These decisions were grounded in the operators' failure to possess local licences while providing services, prompting Malta's move to safeguard its gaming operators from such judgments.

Our Conclusion

In light of these developments, it becomes increasingly evident that players in both Canada and Europe may face challenges when seeking legal recourse against casinos. The passage of Bill 55 in Malta serves as a striking example of how legislation can be wielded to protect gaming operators from foreign judgments, leaving players with limited avenues for pursuing justice through local courts. As the gaming landscape continues to evolve, it's essential for players to remain vigilant and informed about the legal frameworks that govern their interactions with casinos, understanding that the pursuit of justice through traditional channels may prove to be an uphill battle.