The EU’s Hammer Falls: Infringement Proceedings Launched
The European Commission has declared war on Malta’s gaming sovereignty. On June 18, 2025, the Commission initiated formal infringement proceedings (INFR(2025)2100) against Malta over Article 56A (formerly Bill 55), branding it a direct assault on EU legal principles. The charge? Malta’s law systematically blocks EU member states from enforcing judgments against Maltese-licensed gambling operators—effectively creating an offshore legal fortress within the EU.
The Commission’s core grievances:
- Mutual trust obliterated: Article 56A violates Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 (Brussels I Recast) by allowing Maltese courts to reject foreign judgments as a matter of policy, not exception.
- Consumer justice denied: The law actively discourages players from suing operators in Maltese courts, even when Malta is the proper jurisdiction.
- Public policy abused: Malta weaponizes the ordre public exception—meant for rare cases—as a shield for its €2.4 billion gaming industry.
Malta has until mid-August 2025 to respond. Failure risks escalation to the European Court of Justice (ECJ), potentially ending in fines or forced repeal.
Read more about Malta’s Bill55 here.
Malta’s Defiance: “Free Movement” or Free Pass for Rogue Operators?
The Malta Gaming Authority (MGA) counters with audacious rhetoric:
“Article 56A confirms Malta’s long-standing public policy… It does not introduce new grounds to reject foreign judgments.”
Translation: Malta refuses to back down. The MGA insists the law merely codifies existing EU-compliant policy, framing criticism as “misconceptions.” Yet evidence reveals a darker truth:
- Bill 55 was crafted precisely to nullify foreign judgments (e.g., German courts ordering refunds for illegal gambling losses).
- The MGA’s “player protection” claims ring hollow when the law blocks consumers from recovering losses.
Player Risk: Trapped in Malta’s Legal Black Hole
For players on MGA-licensed platforms, Bill 55 is a rigged game:
- No legal recourse: Win a judgment in Germany? Malta’s courts will ignore it.
- Predatory targeting: MGA licensees like Delasport use shell companies to operate in prohibited markets (e.g., Germany, Austria), exploiting Bill 55’s immunity.
- Consumer safeguards = theater: While the MGA boasts “robust player protection,” its directives lack enforcement teeth when operators face zero liability abroad.
Malta: The EU’s Curacao?
Malta mirrors Curacao’s notorious playbook—but with an EU membership card:
| Trait | Curacao | Malta |
|---|---|---|
| Regulatory Leniency | Low-cost licenses, minimal oversight | “Gold standard” facade, lax enforcement |
| Shell Game | Opaque ownership structures | Operators hide behind Maltese shells |
| Consumer Risk | High (unregulated operators) | High (regulated but legally immune) |
| EU Accountability | None (non-EU) | Defiantly exploiting EU membership |
Malta leverages EU freedom-of-services principles to justify what amounts to state-sponsored regulatory arbitrage. As one critic scoffed: “Malta has balls! A masterclass in EU defiance.”
The Provocative Reality
Is Malta gaming the system? Absolutely. By hiding behind “public policy” and “free movement,” Malta enables operators to flout national laws across the EU while enjoying legal impunity. The Commission’s action isn’t bureaucracy—it’s a desperate bid to prevent Malta from becoming Europe’s licensed piracy hub.
Compliance Verdict: Malta’s gamble is backfiring. If the ECJ rules against Article 56A, the MGA’s “gold standard” crumbles—exposing Malta as Curacao with an EU passport. Until then, players remain collateral damage in Malta’s high-stakes legal heist.
