Bill 55 or Why MGA License is lucrative license for casino operators ?

Introduction and Background

An overview of the gambling industry in Malta and the European Union, including previous legal challenges faced by Malta-based operators in other European jurisdictions.

• A Gaming Giant: Did you know that Malta is home to over 250 gaming companies? It's a tiny island with a huge impact, contributing around 12% to Malta's GDP.
• Regulatory Pioneer: Malta was one of the first to regulate online gaming in 2001. The Malta Gaming Authority oversees this bustling sector, ensuring fair play and responsible gaming.
• Business Paradise: Companies flock to Malta for its advantageous tax environment, skilled multilingual workforce, and stable political climate.
• A Magnet for Major Players: Giants like Betsson and smaller startups thrive here, making Malta a diverse and dynamic gaming hub.
• Legal Innovations: With laws like the Gaming (Amendment) Act, Malta stays ahead, protecting its gaming sector amidst complex international legal landscapes.

Main Provisions of the Act

Detailed description of the key elements of the Act, particularly the provisions that protect Malta-based gambling operators from foreign legal actions and liabilities.

1. Non-Recognition of Foreign Judgments: The Act orders Maltese courts to not recognize or enforce judgments from foreign courts against Malta-licensed gambling operators. This means that if a foreign court rules against a Malta-based operator, that judgment has no legal standing in Malta.
2. License Scope: It clarifies that activities covered under a Malta gambling license are protected. If an operator is licensed in Malta, their licensed activities are shielded from legal challenges in other countries, provided they comply with Maltese law.
3. Focus on the European Single Market: The Act specifically addresses operations within the European single market, highlighting Malta’s role in the broader European gambling landscape and providing legal backing for operators working within this market.
4. Response to European Legal Challenges: This law is Malta's response to the complex legal environment in Europe, particularly in light of recent legal cases in countries like Germany and Austria, where Malta-based operators faced legal challenges.

Basically, it means that operators can easily operate with Malta license in EU without legal consequences.. Sounds interesting :)

Legal Precedents and Ongoing Cases

Discussion of relevant legal cases in countries like Germany and Austria that have influenced the creation of this law.

Austrian Supreme Court Verdict against PokerStars

• Background: PokerStars, a major online gambling operator owned by Flutter, faced legal challenges in Austria.
• Ruling: The Austrian Supreme Court ruled that PokerStars was not licensed to operate in Austria, operating in contravention of the federal gambling monopoly.
• Consequences: All contracts between PokerStars and Austrian players were declared null and void.
• Reimbursement Ordered: The court ordered PokerStars to pay back €28,000 to a player for losses incurred between 2014 and 2019.
• Wider Implications: The Austrian law firm involved in the case noted that around 2,000 people were ready to file lawsuits to reclaim their funds​​​​.

German Court Decisions

• Case Study: A German court ordered an unnamed online casino to repay over €26,000 to a player for gambling losses incurred before the regulation of online gambling in Germany.
• Legal Precedent: This decision upheld a lower court's ruling and set a precedent for similar claims.
• Broader Impact: These cases have led to numerous claims against operators with past or current activities in these countries. For example, AdvoFin, a legal firm, claimed to have recovered €40 million in player losses for 1,500 plaintiffs​

Legal Precedents and Ongoing Cases

Discussion of relevant legal cases in countries like Germany and Austria that have influenced the creation of this law.

Austrian Supreme Court Verdict against PokerStars

• Background: PokerStars, a major online gambling operator owned by Flutter, faced legal challenges in Austria.
• Ruling: The Austrian Supreme Court ruled that PokerStars was not licensed to operate in Austria, operating in contravention of the federal gambling monopoly.
• Consequences: All contracts between PokerStars and Austrian players were declared null and void.
• Reimbursement Ordered: The court ordered PokerStars to pay back €28,000 to a player for losses incurred between 2014 and 2019.
• Wider Implications: The Austrian law firm involved in the case noted that around 2,000 people were ready to file lawsuits to reclaim their funds​​​​.

German Court Decisions

• Case Study: A German court ordered an unnamed online casino to repay over €26,000 to a player for gambling losses incurred before the regulation of online gambling in Germany.
• Legal Precedent: This decision upheld a lower court's ruling and set a precedent for similar claims.
• Broader Impact: These cases have led to numerous claims against operators with past or current activities in these countries. For example, AdvoFin, a legal firm, claimed to have recovered €40 million in player losses for 1,500 plaintiffs​