The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has issued a ruling on jurisdiction in claims for damages by players against online gaming companies.

The preliminary ruling by the ECJ is in response to a referral from the Supreme Court of Austria.

The request for a preliminary ruling stems from an Austrian case involving two directors of the now-defunct online gaming operator Titanium Brace Marketing, which was licensed in Malta.

With the company in liquidation, its directors are being sued by an Austrian player who is seeking to recover his gambling losses. He claims that his contract with the online casino is null and void because the site was not licensed in Austria, and that under Austrian law, the two directors are personally liable for the fact that Titanium offered illegal games of chance in Austria.

The two directors dispute the jurisdiction of the Austrian Courts and argue that the event that gave rise to the alleged damage, and the place where the damage occurred, was in Malta, where company officers are not held personally liable.

The ECJ ruling states that “in the context of an action for damages for losses incurred when participating in online games of chance offered by a company in a Member State where that company did not hold the licence required by law, the damage sustained by a player must be deemed to have occurred in the Member State in which that player is habitually resident.

“That said, where it is clear from all the circumstances of the case that the tort or delict is manifestly more closely connected with another country, the Rome II Regulation allows the court seised to depart from the general rule and to apply the law of that other country.”

This week’s ruling is in line with an Opinion issued by ECJ advocate general Nicholas Emiliou in June 2025. He said: “where a consumer alleges to have sustained gambling losses as a result of participating, from the Member State where he or she is habitually resident, in the online games of chance offered to him or her by a provider established in another Member State without a licence granted by the authorities of the first State, the ‘damage’ within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the Rome II Regulation occurred in that first State, as the country from which the bets were placed.”

AG Emiliou’s Opinion also said that a Maltese gambling company which directs its activity to a certain Member State can reasonably expect that the law of that State could apply to torts related to that activity.

In June 2025, the European Commission launched infringement proceedings against Malta, accusing the country of failing to comply with European Union rules on jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial disputes.

The EC accuses Malta of failing to comply with the applicable regulations by imposing an obligation on its courts to systematically refuse the recognition and enforcement of judgments issued by courts of other EU Member States against Maltese-licensed gaming companies. 

Austrian litigation financier Padronus, which has a number of cases against online casino operators on hold pending a ruling from the ECJ ruling, said its lawyers would now launch a new wave of lawsuits against casino executives.

“The lawsuits brought against managing directors are useful and important because most legally binding judgments against the companies themselves are unfortunately not currently being enforced,” said Richard Eibl, managing director of Padronus. “Even well-known providers like PokerStars and Mr. Green are not repaying gambling losses. They are invoking a Maltese law that violates EU law, according to which Austrian gambling judgments cannot be enforced. This is despite the fact that the mutual recognition of court judgments is a cornerstone of the European legal community.

“With the current ECJ ruling, the noose is tightening for operators of illegal gambling. The European Court of Justice is once again making it clear that it no longer has any tolerance for these practices.”