THE TED MENMUIR COLUMN
Malta enters EU Grindhouse with Bill.55 Let’s give credit where it’s due, the government of Malta has picked a zinger of a name in ‘Bill-55’ to refute its national courts from enforcing foreign liability on Malta-licensed iGaming operators, writes TED MENMUIR, SBC’s Content Director and Editor of SBC News.
A
blockbuster of a name; Bill-55 rolls off the tongue and is ingrained in readers’ minds, in what could spiral to become the most controversial issue in the governance of online gambling, in which Malta has unapologetically entered the grindhouse of EU politics. Officially titled the ‘Gaming Amendment Bill’, Bill.55 first came to light in April of this year as a special provision sponsored by Hon. Silvio Schembri MP - Minister for the Economy and European Funds to amend Malta’s Gambling Act. However, the Bill lit its fuse in July when it was signed into law by President George Vella, as details revealed that Malta’s government would endorse its courts to deny recognition and enforcement of foreign legal judgements concerning the online gambling sector. Just one page long and light on technical details of how Malta will apply its new law, the text of Bill.55 caused immediate international uproar on the assessment of two sentences. Amendments to the Gambling Act will allow for national courts to restrict enforcement against Malta Gambling Authority (MGA) licensed operators should it be deemed that “actions conflict with or threaten gaming services in Malta” or “when an action pertains to an activity deemed lawful under the Gambling Act”. Immediately Malta was questioned for endorsing such a bill, viewed
as a brazen protectionist move by regulatory counterparts. Initial complaints were submitted by the government of Austria, which detailed that its previous ECJ filed liability orders to Maltese courts in relation to penalties related to 888 Holdings infringing on Casinos Austria’s monopoly rights. Austrian courts were followed by Gluecksspiel, Germany’s Federal Gambling Authority, which described Bill.55 as “not compatible with existing European laws”. The matter was further expanded to the Netherlands, where Dutch industry lawyers suggested it indicated that “Malta actually wants to undermine Dutch jurisprudence - and that of other EU member states”. Matched against heavyweight EU member states, Malta stood its ground, underlining its initial assessment that an MGA licence should allow for domiciled businesses to offer services throughout the EU due to the principle of free movement of goods and services - irrespective of EU member states’ specific laws on gambling. The MGA would issue a statement branding Bill.55 as “accurate and transparent” in which its text “is simply an interpretation of the order public grounds for refusal envisaged in said EU regulation. Moreover, the scope of the amendments enacted into law is highly restricted to a licensee”. As it stands, Malta’s government
11
and the MGA insist that Bill.55 amendments hold no friction with EU regulations as Malta courts can only enforce infringements governed under the Gambling Act. For industry observers the context in Malta sanctioning Bill.55 is significant, as timings are a sensitive matter and come into play amid a backdrop of member states overhauling their respective gambling markets, be it the Netherlands, Germany, Britain (Yes…we are no longer part of the bloc), Spain, Sweden and Italy. Furore aside, a call for EU intervention appears unlikely as there is no indication that Bill.55 will be triggered by Malta. Put simply, how can EU judges determine what is unknown or yet to be tested? However, the uproar around Bill.55 is significant for all stakeholders, in which Malta has a right to interpret its own laws on online gambling as a key sector. As member states overhaul their individual laws, the EU has yet to define unified standards on how to govern online gambling within its common marketplace. Bill.55 and Malta could be the test case in launching these vital deliberations. Currently, as a market, online gambling remains fragmented on core regulatory disciplines and consumer protections… Perhaps this is the real drama that stakeholders should be tuning into.
