By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has ruled that EU law permits member states to prohibit certain online gambling services offered from other EU countries. This decision stems from a case involving Malta-licensed companies providing services in Germany, where such online games were illegal. The court affirmed that while freedom to provide services applies to online gambling, it can be restricted for public interest reasons like consumer protection. Consequently, national courts can declare contracts violating these prohibitions void and order the repayment of lost stakes.
Read the original article here
Germany’s decision to permit the banning of online casino games offered by companies licensed in Malta represents a significant shift in how European Union member states approach the regulation of online gambling, particularly when it comes to differing national laws and the practicalities of the EU’s common market. While the EU strives for a unified market where services licensed in one member state can often be offered across the bloc, the realm of gambling has always been a complex exception, often requiring adherence to local licensing and regulatory requirements. This development effectively underscores the principle that, in certain sensitive sectors like gambling, national sovereignty in regulation can indeed take precedence over the broader concept of EU-wide service provision based on a single license.
The rationale behind such national control is rooted in the understanding that online gambling can be a deeply predatory industry. There are numerous documented instances where online casinos have aggressively targeted individuals identified as problem gamblers, using inducements like bonuses and even free travel to encourage them to continue playing. This predatory behavior highlights the need for robust local oversight that can respond effectively to the specific social and economic contexts within a country. The idea that a license from one EU country, like Malta, should automatically grant unrestricted access to all other member states in this particular industry is being challenged, suggesting that the “passporting” of gambling services across the EU, as exists for some other sectors, is not a straightforward application here.
It’s not entirely surprising that Germany has moved in this direction, as many European nations with stringent gambling laws mandate local licenses. This requirement ensures that operators are subject to the specific consumer protection laws, taxation frameworks, and responsible gambling measures enforced within that country. The German approach, by allowing for bans on services not meeting its own standards, reinforces the idea that national governments have a legitimate interest in protecting their citizens from what they perceive as harmful or unregulated gambling activities.
For German citizens, this ruling offers a potential safeguard, especially concerning the recovery of funds lost on unlicensed or improperly licensed platforms. The situation is somewhat mirrored in Austria, where obtaining a local online casino license is notoriously difficult, leading many operators to function illegally. In such cases, Austrian gamblers have reportedly been able to reclaim losses because the service was provided illegally. This suggests a broader European trend where jurisdictions are empowering their citizens to seek redress against operators who circumvent local regulations, even if they hold licenses from other EU member states.
The argument that individuals enjoy gambling as a hobby and that their preferences should be respected is acknowledged. However, the pervasive nature of gambling advertising, often targeting vulnerable populations including underage individuals through online games, YouTube ads, and sponsorships of major sporting events, presents a significant societal concern. This widespread visibility and aggressive marketing contribute to the perception of gambling as a problematic industry that requires stricter controls beyond what a single EU-wide license might provide. The potential for billions in lost tax revenue is a valid economic consideration, but the argument is also made that driving players to unregulated markets, where there are no obligations for self-regulation, money laundering controls, or monitoring, poses even greater risks.
The comparison to prohibiting alcohol highlights the difficulty of completely eradicating gambling, suggesting that a regulated approach, even with potential tax implications, might be preferable to driving the activity underground. However, the effectiveness of existing regulations is questioned, with deposit and spin limits easily overridden and gambling authorities sometimes perceived as prioritizing operator compliance over player disputes. This can lead to situations where players, seeking larger stakes or more appealing gameplay, might still gravitate towards illegal options if the legal ones are too restrictive or unattractive.
The Polish experience offers a practical example of how websites are blocked by Internet Service Providers (ISPs) if they are placed on a government-mandated list of illegal operators. This approach, while potentially effective in reducing casual access, can be circumvented through the use of Virtual Private Networks (VPNs). To combat this, Polish law also criminalizes the use of such illegal gambling websites, making both operating and playing on them a punishable offense. This dual strategy of blocking access and criminalizing usage aims to create a more comprehensive deterrent.
The core of the matter often seems to revolve around taxation and the economic benefits derived from regulated gambling. However, the effectiveness and fairness of current regulations are debated, with concerns that they may not adequately protect consumers or that they are primarily driven by the desire for tax revenue. The notion that a license within the EU should be sufficient for all member states, much like the principle of free movement of goods, is challenged by the specific nature of gambling, which has inherent social risks that individual nations feel compelled to manage independently. The argument is made that this can be anti-competitive, akin to banning cars from certain countries without valid reasons.
The existence of exceptions, like Bavaria launching its own legal online casino in 2024, further illustrates that national regulatory frameworks for gambling are diverse and evolving. While the common market principle generally allows for the free provision of services, gambling is consistently treated as an area where national laws can and do diverge. The ability for Germany to ban Malta-licensed online casino games is a manifestation of this divergence, emphasizing that the EU’s common market does not automatically override deeply ingrained national regulatory powers in sectors with significant social implications, such as online gambling.