EC Court of Justice Implications for Malta, Curaсao and Offshore Gambling Operators

As informed by the recent ruling of the EU Court of Justice (CJEU) — Players May Sue Directors of Unlicensed Online Gambling Operators Under Their Home Law — the offshore gambling industry is experiencing one of the most significant shifts in risk management seen in years.

Malta: Bill 55 Loses Its Strategic Value

For years, Malta positioned itself as a legally resilient hub for cross-border online gambling. A key pillar of this strategy was Bill 55, adopted in 2023, which limited the enforceability in Malta of foreign judgments declaring gambling activity illegal in the player’s jurisdiction.

The Court of Justice’s ruling substantially weakens this position.

By confirming that:

• the damage occurs in the player’s country of residence, and
• claims may target company directors personally under tort law,

the judgment reduces the practical protective effect of Bill 55. Even if a foreign judgment is not enforced in Malta as such, liability can now crystallise under the player’s national law, outside the Maltese enforcement shield.

In practical terms, a Maltese licence can no longer be relied upon as a legal firewall against cross-border civil claims, particularly where directors and decision-makers are concerned.

Context: Why the CJEU Ruling Was Not Sudden

As early as 2022–2023, supreme courts in Austria and Germany had already confirmed that players could reclaim gambling losses from operators offering online gambling without local authorisation, even where those operators held a Maltese licence (see my discussion of this case back in 2023).

Under both Austrian and German case law, such gambling activity was deemed unlawful, rendering gambling contracts null and void under national law. As a consequence, players were entitled to recover losses not on contractual grounds, but on the basis of unlawful interference with protected consumer interests.

These national rulings laid the groundwork for a player-centric understanding of damage and liability later adopted at EU level.

Malta’s Response: Enforcement Shield Rather Than Substantive Compliance

Rather than addressing the underlying legality of cross-border gambling activity, Malta’s legislative response focused on blocking the enforcement of foreign judgments, most notably through the adoption of Bill 55. This approach sought to insulate Malta-licensed operators from the practical consequences of adverse rulings in other Member States by invoking public policy and limiting judicial cooperation.

However, this strategy did not resolve the core legal conflict. It deferred enforcement but did not neutralise liability. The CJEU’s judgment now makes clear that applicable law is determined by where the damage occurs — namely, the player’s country of residence — and that claims against directors fall within tort law rather than internal company law.

From National Case Law to EU-Wide Doctrine

The CJEU has elevated a trajectory already visible in national courts into EU-wide conflict-of-law doctrine. The judgment confirms that offshore licensing cannot, by itself, displace national consumer protection regimes.

In this sense, the ruling consolidates and generalises an existing risk. Legal uncertainty that once depended on fragmented national enforcement has now been replaced with a clearer, Union-level rule.

Curaçao: Licensing Without Local Authorisation Carries Rising Risk

For operators licensed in Curaçao, the implications are even more direct.

Curaçao licences have long been used to operate across multiple markets without local authorisation, often on the assumption that enforcement would be weak or fragmented. The CJEU ruling reinforces the opposite trend:

• Courts may apply local player-protection law regardless of offshore licensing.
• Liability exposure may extend beyond the corporate entity to directors and officers.
• The absence of an EU regulatory framework provides no meaningful conflict-of-law shield.

As EU courts increasingly align on player-centric jurisdiction, Curaçao-licensed operators targeting EU residents face materially higher litigation and enforcement risk.

Offshore Operators: Structural Exposure, Not Just Regulatory Risk

Beyond Malta and Curaçao, the ruling sends a broader signal to the offshore gambling sector.

Historically, many offshore operators treated local licensing requirements as regulatory friction and civil liability as a secondary or remote risk. The Court’s reasoning challenges this model.

When applicable law follows the player and liability is framed as tortious conduct rather than contractual or corporate law, common offshore strategies lose effectiveness:

• Corporate restructuring offers only limited protection and may remain the sole viable option
• Licensing arbitrage no longer resolves conflict-of-law issues
• Directors and decision-makers face personal exposure

Conclusion

The CJEU judgment does not outlaw offshore gambling. However, it materially changes the risk calculus.

A licence alone — whether Maltese, Curaçaoan, or other offshore — is no longer a reliable defence against EU player claims. Civil liability increasingly follows the player, not the operator, and enforcement pressure is shifting from regulators alone to courts and private litigation.

For offshore operators targeting EU players without local authorisation, this ruling marks a decisive erosion of long-standing legal assumptions.