Malta’s new law protects gambling companies from claims for damages. This has an impact on player protection in Germany. The federal government’s drug commissioner is critical, and the authorities are investigating a violation of EU law.
Parliament in Malta passed legislation this week to protect the domestic gaming industry from claims for damages from abroad. Specifically, the law, which applies from today, stipulates that courts in Malta should no longer enforce court judgments from abroad if the companies have a Maltese gaming license and comply with local regulations.
Malta is reacting to a wave of lawsuits from abroad. Especially in Germany and Austria, civil courts have recently ordered gaming companies to reimburse plaintiffs for gaming losses. The reason for this was always that the companies from Malta also offered gambling on the Internet for players in Germany and Austria, although this was explicitly forbidden there. The numerous proceedings often involve large sums of money. The plaintiffs regularly point out that they did not know that the games offered were illegal in their country. They often say they suffer from gambling addiction.
Movement at German authorities
While the proposed law from Malta caused a stir among lawyers and player protection groups at an early stage, the federal government reacted largely unsuspectingly last month. The joint gaming authority of the federal states (GGL) only announced that it had taken note of the proposed legislation.
There is now movement on the matter. This is what GGL writes at the request of the ARD Capital Studiosthat she sees the “law quite critically from the point of view of player protection”. The matter is already being examined internally, “in particular with regard to compliance with European law.” Should the GGL come to the conclusion that the Maltese law violates European law, it will consult with the countries on how to proceed.
drug officer looks great need for action
It would then be possible for the federal states to ask the federal government to intervene with the EU. The topic is now also attracting attention at federal level. This is what the federal government’s drug commissioner, Burkhard Blienert, reports in an interview with the ARD Capital Studiothat he had contacted the Federal Ministry of Justice on the matter. It is necessary to take a close look at the facts so that “the players are not the victims afterwards” and “suffer from a possibly unclear legal situation”. The need for action is great, says Blienert, player protection is of particular importance.
However, the Federal Ministry of Justice sees the responsibility for legal clarification primarily with the EU Commission. It is your responsibility to check whether the regulations from Malta are compatible with Union law, a spokeswoman said. “The Commission has already started talks with Malta” and will “take the necessary steps if necessary.” The Ministry of Justice will also “follow the process further.”
EU Commission examines complaint
A spokeswoman for the EU Commission confirmed on request that a complaint is currently being examined. It was submitted in May by the two lawyers Karim Weber and Benedikt Quarch. They accuse Malta of violating European law. That must result in an infringement procedure, according to Quarch’s demand. If Malta’s actions “are left unpunished by the EU, then the next few countries will start protecting their respective largest and most important industries with such laws.” That would then, says Quarch, have far-reaching effects on the European legal community.
It remains to be seen how gambling companies that are being sued in Germany will use the Maltese protective shield in the future. Many of the affected companies now also have a German gaming license. In this respect, they are at least under the supervision of the joint gaming authority of the federal states. This announces that it will also monitor the issue: “Should the providers apply the protective shield to the detriment of German players, it will have to be checked on a case-by-case basis whether this affects the reliability of the provider or whether it may be necessary to tighten up the ancillary provisions of the licenses and will be possible.”