Malta Gaming Authority Clarifies Article 56A: Key Insights for Casinos and Players

_{Malta Gaming Authority headquarters at SmartCity Malta, where the MGA issued a statement addressing EU legal concerns over Article 56A. (Image: Wikipedia)}

The Malta Gaming Authority (MGA) has responded to a letter of formal notice from the European Commission concerning Article 56A of the Gaming Act, formerly known as Bill 55.

The response aims to address legal uncertainties surrounding the provision and enforcement of gambling services across European Union member states, particularly in the context of online casinos licensed in Malta.

The clarification follows the European Commission’s decision in May 2024 to initiate infringement proceedings against Malta, citing concerns that the law could obstruct the cross-border enforcement of judgments in gambling-related cases.

MGA Clarification on Article 56A

In a statement published on its official website, the MGA emphasized that Article 56A does not provide blanket protection for Maltese-licensed gaming companies from lawsuits or enforcement actions brought in foreign courts. It also does not block the enforcement of all foreign judgments.

Instead, the MGA explained, the provision codifies Malta’s long-standing public policy on the legal regulation of online gambling. Article 56A was designed to reaffirm that Maltese courts may decline to recognize or enforce foreign judgments that contradict this national policy framework.

“Article 56A reflects the existing regulatory model and aligns with European laws, such as the Brussels I Recast Regulation, without introducing any new legal defenses,” the MGA stated.

Key Insights for Casino Owners

Casino operators licensed in Malta have raised questions about how the law affects their ability to operate in other EU jurisdictions. The MGA clarified that:

• Malta’s system is based on a point-of-supply licensing model, under which companies licensed in Malta can legally provide services across the EU.
• Operators must still comply with both Maltese and EU legislation, and Article 56A does not shield them from legal responsibilities abroad.
• The law does not override EU mechanisms for judicial cooperation but allows the courts to consider public policy exceptions in specific, narrowly defined cases.

Player Protection, Responsible Gambling and Legal Alignment

The MGA reaffirmed its commitment to:

• Responsible gambling measures
• Protection of player funds
• Safeguards for minors and vulnerable individuals
• Transparent and fair advertising practices

The authority also reiterated Malta’s support for the freedom to provide services and establish businesses across the EU in line with treaty obligations. It opposes what it deems unjustified legal restrictions that limit market access for Malta-based operators.

“Article 56A simply clarifies our national stance in legal terms, it does not introduce new barriers to cooperation with EU legal systems,” the MGA noted.

Broader Legal and Industry Implications

The European Commission’s letter suggested that Malta’s framework might be incompatible with EU law, particularly regarding the recognition of foreign court rulings and the upholding of judicial cooperation principles.

Legal experts have weighed in on the implications of the law.

Antonio Ghio, senior partner at Fenech & Fenech Advocates, told 'SiGMA News' that Article 56A

“…is crystallising the long-standing public policy in Malta vis-à-vis the provision of gaming services from Malta through a Maltese gaming license from a point of supply principle.”

He added that the scope of the law is “highly restricted” and “does not, in any way, prevent legal action from being taken against a Maltese licensee.”

The European Gaming and Betting Association (EGBA) has previously warned that laws like Article 56A could create fragmentation in the EU internal market by allowing gaming jurisdictions to reject mutual legal obligations.

What Comes Next?

Malta has until July 2025 to formally respond to the Commission’s legal concerns. Failure to reach a resolution could lead to a reasoned opinion and potentially escalate to a hearing before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).

The MGA and the Maltese government maintain that they are committed to ongoing dialogue with the European Commission and to upholding legal certainty in cross-border gambling regulation.