Malta’s Bill 55 Faces Further EU Scrutiny as CJEU Advocate General Issues Opinion

Quick Summary

• A CJEU Advocate General opinion raises new legal doubts around Malta’s Bill 55 and its Article 56A
• The opinion, while not naming Bill 55 directly, has direct implications for the scope of Malta’s gaming law protections
• This legal development intensifies questions about the compatibility of Maltese gambling regulation with broader EU frameworks
• Industry stakeholders and European regulators are monitoring the impact on cross-border iGaming enforcement

What Happened

The debate over Malta’s Bill 55—formally Article 56A of Malta’s Gaming Act—has received fresh attention after a recent opinion by Nicholas Emiliou, Advocate General at the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). Emiliou’s legal assessment, delivered in March 2026, does not reference Bill 55 by name but addresses related legal principles at the heart of the bill’s most controversial protections for Malta-licensed gaming operators.

Specifically, the opinion casts doubt on the legal grounds Malta uses to shield its licensees from adverse judgments and enforcement actions originating from other EU jurisdictions. While CJEU Advocate General opinions are advisory and not binding, they often indicate the direction of the court’s final rulings—and carry significant weight in shaping both national and EU regulatory enforcement.

Why It Matters

The latest CJEU development raises the stakes in an ongoing conflict between Malta’s approach to online gaming regulation and the rest of the European Union. Since its introduction, Bill 55 has sought to prevent the recognition and enforcement in Malta of foreign court judgments—often civil claims or enforcement attempts—against Malta-licensed gambling companies for activities permitted under Maltese law. This legal shield was positioned as a response to a surge in lawsuits brought in Italy, Austria, and Germany by individuals and consumer groups alleging illegal or unlicensed gambling activity, where local laws diverge from Malta’s more permissive regulatory stance.

Advocate General Emiliou’s opinion questions whether Malta’s protections are compatible with key EU treaty principles, including the mutual recognition of court judgments and the integrity of the single market. For operators, the potential invalidation of Bill 55’s provisions would mark a significant retreat from Malta’s longstanding effort to present itself as a safe haven for cross-border gambling businesses within the EU. European consumer protection advocates, meanwhile, view the move as affirmation that national courts must be able to hold remote operators accountable regardless of their licensing base.

The opinion also reverberates far beyond Malta or its direct licensees. If the CJEU ultimately aligns with the Advocate General, it could open the door to a new era of cross-border enforcement against iGaming operators who have long relied on the Malta gambling regulation framework as a defence against legal action. Mergers, acquisitions, and compliance due diligence across the sector could face increased complexity and cost, particularly for companies serving higher-risk European markets.

Industry Context

Malta has positioned itself as the EU’s central iGaming hub since joining the bloc in 2004 and establishing the Malta Gaming Authority (MGA) as a model regulator. Its licensing system, considered among the most robust in terms of technical standards but relatively permissive compared to national monopolies or outright bans elsewhere, has attracted hundreds of online casino and betting brands.

Tension between national restrictions and Malta’s cross-border licensing model is not new. Over the past five years, Germany, Italy, Austria, and other EU states have intensified efforts to curtail what they see as circumvention of their restrictive regimes by operators holding foreign licences, with lawsuits proliferating and multimillion-euro claims filed against Malta-licensed entities. Bill 55 was introduced in June 2023 as a legislative bulwark to protect the country’s sector from what were perceived as excessive or extraterritorial enforcement efforts—but has prompted formal objections from European regulatory and legal authorities.

The outcome of this case will be closely watched by all iGaming jurisdictions that operate within the EU’s single market. It may set a precedent for how member states reconcile diverging national laws with the foundational principles of mutual recognition and freedom of service provision under EU law.

Regulatory Background

Article 56A of Malta’s Gaming Act—commonly referred to as Bill 55—grants Maltese courts authority to reject the recognition or enforcement of foreign judgments related to gambling activities licensed in Malta, except where specifically permitted under EU law. The government argued this was necessary to protect local economic interests, legal certainty for operators, and the integrity of its regulatory framework.

However, EU law prioritises the mutual recognition and enforcement of legal decisions across member states, especially in civil and commercial matters. The emergence of increasingly divergent national approaches to online gambling has created regulatory friction that Bill 55 sought to mitigate—but at the risk of undermining the EU’s legal order.

What Happens Next

Following the Advocate General’s opinion, the CJEU will deliver a final ruling, likely within the coming months, which will clarify the legal standing of Malta’s Bill 55. Should the court agree with Emiliou, Malta may be forced to revise or repeal the controversial provisions—and cross-border enforcement actions from other EU states may intensify accordingly. Regulated operators and compliance officers across the iGaming sector will need to closely monitor the outcome, as it will shape legal risk and business models throughout the EU.

Sources

• SBC News

This article is for informational purposes only. 31Casino does not provide gambling services or recommendations. If you're concerned about your gambling, visit our Responsible Gambling page for support resources.