EU Commissioner for Democracy, Justice, the Rule of Law and Consumer Protection, Michael McGrath, in an official response to a parliamentary question, clarified that Malta-licensed iGaming companies have not received funds from EU member nations via direct or indirect management. The European Commission also reiterated its stance against Bill 55 of the Maltese Gaming Act.
Examining Malta’s Bill 55 in the Context of EU Law: Quick Overview
- Article 56A of the Maltese Gaming Act, better known as Bill 55, allows local courts to rule against foreign judgments if the rulings contradict existing Maltese law. The EC believes this provision undermines mutual trust between EU member states.
- The EC opened formal proceedings against Malta in June 2025. It noted that Bill 55 dissuades foreign claimants from initiating legal action against iGaming operators licensed in Malta, even in cases which would fall under the Brussels I Recast Regulation.
- The Maltese government argued that Bill 55 is compatible with EU law. It claims the legislation complies with the EU’s public order exception. Furthermore, Maltese authorities claim that Bill 55 is crucial for preserving Malta’s regulatory model, which allows international transactions under Maltese supervision.
The Controversy Surrounding the Maltese Gaming Bill 55
A parliamentary question by German politician and MEP Daniel Freund noted that Malta hosts 321 licensed gambling companies, including major operators. Freund further highlighted that the Maltese Gaming Act limits the enforcement of foreign court rulings against these companies, prompting the European Commission to launch an infringement procedure after nearly two years of review. In this context, Freund raised the two following questions:
- Can the Commission state whether any gambling company in Malta benefits from EU funding, whether through direct or indirect management?
- Can the Commission provide a detailed explanation of why it took nearly two years to review the Gaming Act and reach this decision, and can it provide access to the written exchanges on this case between Malta and the Commission in order to make this lengthy process more comprehensible?
McGrath, on behalf of the EC, responded to the question, stating:
Based on the information available, there is no indication showing that gambling companies in Malta benefit from EU funding. The Commission always prioritises dialogue and supports Member States in the implementation of EU law. As the dialogue with the Maltese authorities did not resolve the matter, the Commission launched infringement proceedings. The written exchanges with Malta on this issue are therefore linked to an ongoing infringement procedure and can, as such, not be made public.
Malta’s strict regulatory stance and enforcement policies have helped the island nation develop into an advanced regulatory centre for online gambling over the past several years. While the Maltese Gaming Act has historically been compliant with EU legislation, the introduction of Article 56A, popularly known as Bill 55, has been marred by controversy since its introduction in 2023.
Bill 55 of the Malta Gaming Act empowers local courts to disregard international rulings against Malta-licensed gaming companies in cases where the foreign law conflicts with Maltese public policies. This encourages Maltese gaming organisations to offer their services in a manner compliant with Maltese law.
The European Commission views this as an absolute form of power and a source of gross mistrust among EU member states. In June 2025, the EC initiated formal proceedings against the Malta Gaming Authority. It claims Article 56A dissuades foreign entities from initiating legal action against iGaming brands licensed in Malta, even when the jurisdiction complies with the provisions of the Brussels I Regulation.
Legal Developments and the Road Ahead
Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, better known as the Brussels I Regulation, establishes the rules that determine which EU member state has jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters. Malta’s Gaming Bill 55 infringes upon this legislation, prompting the EC to send a formal notice to the MGA.
Responding to the litigation, the Maltese government and the MGA argued that Article 56A does not contradict the EU’s legislation. Instead, it is a formal directive reflecting the MGA’s stance on its public policy exemptions, compatible with EU legislation. Maltese authorities noted that Bill 55 is necessary to protect Malta’s regulatory model, which allows international services under Maltese regulatory supervision.
The Maltese government takes serious precautions to maintain a reputable regulatory model. Earlier in July, the MGA announced a new capital requirement policy to protect the economic viability of the iGaming industry and ensure capital resources are available to licensees for continued operations and development.
As of the time of publication, the European Commission remains dissatisfied with the response received from Maltese authorities. Brussels is contemplating whether to escalate the matter to the Court of Justice of the European Union or revert with a reasoned opinion.
If the matter reaches Luxembourg, a court ruling would set a precedent for similar instances in the future. For remote gambling operators licensed in Malta, this would mean the risk of facing legal actions in EU member nations, undermining the core reason to seek an MGA gambling licence.