The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has revealed the significant lengths that EU Courts could extend to in a bid to strengthen action against Malta operators.

It’s a case that may shift the tide in terms of governance and regulation across Europe and Malta – with EU courts taking on the regulatory ringfencing of Bill 55.

According to the Advocate General (AG) of the ECJ, the framework could shift to dilute the effectiveness of Bill 55 when it comes to Malta safeguarding its domestic operators.

In a significant referral, the Advocate General has put forward the case to enable international authorities to freeze the assets of Malta-based companies in the event of local breaches.

The Advocate General has outlined that the European Account Preservation Order (EAPO) Regulation could well be utilised to enforce asset freezes

The focus on the bill was enhanced by the case of the two Austrian players who filed claims against Malta-based and licensed firms. A Maltese court sought to overrule the decision of an Austrian court over whether gaming operators in Malta should compensate Austrian players.

Courts in Austria both backed the players, with the Austrian framework currently citing any overseas operator as being illegal in the country if it does not hold a local licence.

Maltese courts and the two operators emphasised the free market and EU laws enabling free movements of services, illegitimising the original Austrian decision in the eyes of the Maltese legal system.

The MGA has consistently argued that the bill is in place to protect Maltese operators from “baseless legal challenges”.

Malta’s regulatory body has previously stated that it wants to ensure “its licensees are allowed to operate where they have a justifiable legal reason to do so, and always in a compliant manner.”

The latest statement from the Advocate General does underpin growing tension from Europe towards the way Bill 55 is utilised as it looks to change the framework around its implementation.

The Advocate General is seeking to implement tweaks to the bill to strengthen the ability of domestic EU courts to ensure their citizens can take legislative action against Maltese operators.

Central to the recommended changes is the ability of EU courts to be allowed to freeze the assets of Maltese gambling companies to aid debt recovery and bypass Bill 55.

Some of the most vocal disdain towards Bill 55 has come from Germany, with the national regulator, the GGL consistently calling for a reassessment of the impact it has on the sector.

Previously, the GGL has stated: “We are of the opinion that this law should not be compatible with European requirements for the recognition of decisions (Regulation (EU) 1215/2002).

“However, the final assessment of this question is not the responsibility of the GGL. We have informed the federal states of our assessment and are otherwise in contact with the relevant authorities.”

The court battles over the future of Bill 55 now look set to rumble on into 2026, in what could prove to be a decisive year for the future of the regulation and its impact on the gambling industry.

Luxembourg appears to be at a crossroads as to how its gambling market will be regulated, with ministers divided between market liberalisation or the reintroduction of a full state-controlled monopoly under its 48-year-old gambling law.

Political concerns over gambling addiction in the Grand Duchy have grown in 2025, due to the ease of online gambling being promoted to citizens of Luxembourg via foreign media networks and internet service providers (ISPs).

Deliberations in October saw Dan Biancalana of the Luxembourg Socialist Party call on the government to curb the spread of interactive gaming machines in cafés and update restrictions on online betting and casino platforms..

In response, Justice Minister Elisabeth Margue confirmed that reform is underway to grant exclusive rights to the National Lottery and the country’s sole casino, Casino 2000, in Mondorf-les-Bains.

Under the proposal, cafés would be limited to National Lottery-operated terminals, with all other gaming devices including skill-based machines prohibited. On online gambling, the government is considering whether to allow the casino to operate a licensed platform, while assessing technical implications under European law on geo-blocking and player protection.

“According to European case law, you can create such a monopoly, but then you must protect your citizens,” Margue told parliament, adding that “complex discussions are ongoing with all concerned parties” to determine the scope of reform.

National media outlets report that the Justice Ministry has begun consultations with the National Lottery, Casino 2000, and other ministries on the structure of a potential state-run monopoly to control both retail and online gambling channels.

Currently, Luxembourg’s gambling activity remains limited to the Loterie Nationale and Casino 2000, with proceeds from lottery and sports betting supporting social and cultural projects through the Œuvre Nationale de Secours Grande-Duchesse Charlotte.

While European law allows for a monopoly system in gambling, Luxembourg must demonstrate that it can engineer such a model to serve in the “public-interest objectives of harm prevention and consumer protection” — rather than state revenue generation.

The monopoly debate continues reforms initiated earlier this year, when the Justice Ministry initiated discussions to overhaul the 1977 Gambling Law,, to combat illegal and unlicensed betting. The new framework aims to address unregulated machines in restaurants and adapt to the “realities and challenges of the 21st century.”

However, PM Luc Frieden has so stood on the sidelines of the debate, emphasising awareness and player responsibility over restrictive legislation. He highlighted the National Lottery’s responsible-gambling measures, including transparent odds, betting limits, and educational campaigns about the social and psychological consequences of gambling.

Sports betting has been legal only since 2009 and is offered exclusively via LoterieSport.lu, a subsidiary of Loterie Nationale launched in 2024 — at the time promoted by the government as “the safest and most secure environment for Luxembourg nationals to gamble on”

The ongoing parliamentary debate has outlined a potential hybrid framework, preserving state control through the National Lottery while granting a single, regulated online concession to Casino 2000.

Another scenario under review would see Luxembourg ring-fence its licensing system, issuing a limited number of permits for specific gambling activities. However, such an approach could conflict with EU competition and single-market principles, particularly around free movement of services and market access.

2026 will reveal whether policymakers favour state stewardship as the most effective path to curb addiction and illegal play — or whether a more open, competitive licensing model aligned with wider European trends ultimately prevails.

The Spanish government is moving forward with its plans to overhaul player protection measures for online gambling users.

The Directorate General of the Regulation of Gambling (DGOJ) is seeking to establish a centralised deposit limit system for players, set at €600 per day, €1,500 per week and €3,000 per month.

This would shake up current measures, which requires each operator to manage limits independently.

The regulatory project began in 2023 and is still pending final approval.

The plans include the ability for users to reduce limits or eliminate them, although the changes will not take effect until three days have passed and can only be modified once per quarter.

Alongside deposit limits, the DGOJ is also spearheading a new approach to monitoring problem gambling behaviours as part of the Royal Decree of gambling environments.

The regulator is working on the development of an AI-led responsible gambling algorithm that aims to trace live variable indicators of problem gambling risks.

The algorithm, which the DGOJ’s Directorate General Mikel Arana expects to be completed by March 2026, will be mandatory for all operators in the Spanish market. The DGOJ believes the project will make it the first European regulator to apply AI to customer interventions around gambling harm.

Balancing regulation and player experience

Although player protection measures are essential for operating within a regulated market, industry experts in Spain have warned that changes must be complemented by an efficient player experience.

Speaking at June’s Gaming in Spain conference, Jorge Hinojosa, Director General of Jdigital, said: “[Player protection reforms] have not been complemented, in my opinion, by policies to keep the market more competitive.”

Hinojosa emphasised that there needs to be recognition that operators, the DGOJ and the wider industry have a “common job” to ensure that Spain develops a stronger gambling market through measures such as allowing new modalities like live casino.

Esther Martin-Ortega, Head of Public Affairs and Sustainability at Flutter, echoed these sentiments, reiterating the need to keep the regulated Spanish market attractive given the looming threat of the black market – especially for young players using social media.

“There are influencers on gaming, and they always find a way of putting the advertising in front of you, and then they get the visibility they need,” she said.

“We have a generation of smartphone natives who check what’s going on on social media. Access for a consumer to the black market is much broader than ever.”