On 15 January 2026 in Luxembourg, the Court of Justice of the European Union handed down a major ruling on online gambling: when a player participates in online games of chance offered without a licence in their country, which law applies and before which courts can they take action? The answer given by the European judges significantly strengthens the position of players against foreign operators and their managers.
A legal standoff between Malta and Austria
An Austrian resident registers on an online gambling platform operated by Titanium Brace Marketing Limited, a company based in Malta. Like thousands of other European players, he opened a player account, funded it with a transfer from his national bank and participated in games accessible with just a few clicks.
However, one key factor would change the situation: although the operator did have a gambling licence issued in Malta, it did not have one in Austria. Austrian law prohibits the offering of games of chance to the public without a national licence. Believing that the gambling contracts were void and that his losses were the result of illegal activity, the player decided to take legal action. His action was not only against the company, now in liquidation, but directly against its two directors. Under Austrian law, they could be held personally liable for allowing illegal gambling to take place on national territory.
Titanium’s directors immediately challenged the jurisdiction of the Austrian courts. In their view, everything took place in Malta: the company was established there, the licence was issued there, and the bank accounts were opened there. In their opinion, both the event giving rise to the damage and the damage itself occurred on the Mediterranean island. They went even further. If any law were to apply, it would be Maltese law, which does not provide for the personal liability of directors towards the company’s creditors or customers.
Faced with these arguments, the Austrian Supreme Court decided to refer the case to the Court of Justice of the European Union. It asked the Court to interpret the Rome II Regulation, which determines the law applicable to non-contractual obligations, particularly in matters of civil liability.
The key to the reasoning: where does the damage occur?
At the heart of the Court of Justice’s ruling is a question that appears simple but is complex in the digital age: in the case of online gambling, where is the damage suffered by the player deemed to occur?
The judges first recalled the general principle laid down by the Rome II Regulation. In matters of tortious liability, the applicable law is that of the country where the damage occurs, regardless of where the event giving rise to the damage occurred or where the indirect consequences manifest themselves. Applied to online gambling, this principle takes on a new dimension. The Court considers that a player’s financial loss does not materialise where the computer server or the operator’s registered office is located, but rather where the player actually participates in the games, from his habitual place of residence.
In this case, the damage is therefore deemed to have occurred in Austria. It was from Austria that the player accessed the games, it is there that national legislation aims to protect him, and it is there that the infringement of his interests materialised.
The Court goes further in explaining its reasoning. The alleged harm results from the violation of a prohibition under the law of the player’s country of residence, in this case the prohibition on offering games of chance without a licence. The specific purpose of this prohibition is to protect consumers from the risks associated with gambling. In a digital environment that is difficult to locate physically, the player’s location becomes the most relevant legal anchor point. In other words, online gambling takes place, legally speaking, where the player is located.
This analysis reinforces a protective view of European law. It prevents an operator from hiding behind its establishment in another Member State to escape the stricter rules of a country where it is actively targeting players.
Managers targeted for civil liability
Another key point in the decision concerns the personal liability of managers. The defendants argued that the action brought fell under company law, which is excluded from the scope of the Rome II Regulation.
The Court clearly rejected this argument. It specified that the action seeking to hold executives liable for breaching a legal prohibition did not fall within the scope of domestic company law, but was an external obligation based on compliance with national law protecting players.
However, the Court of Justice introduces an important nuance. The Rome II Regulation provides for an exception clause: if all the circumstances show that the dispute is manifestly more closely connected to another country, the national court may disregard the law of the place where the damage occurred. In practice, it will be up to the national courts to assess, on a case-by-case basis, whether there is a stronger connection with another State. In situations where online gambling clearly targets players in a given country, this exception is likely to remain marginal.
What are the consequences for the European gambling market?
For players, the decision opens up new possibilities. In principle, they can bring proceedings before the courts of their country of residence and invoke their own national law to seek compensation for their losses, including against the operators’ managers.
For national authorities, the ruling strengthens the consistency of regulatory policies. It recognises the legitimacy of Member States to protect their citizens from gambling offers deemed illegal on their territory, even when they originate from companies established elsewhere in the EU.
Although delivered in the context of a preliminary ruling, the Court of Justice’s decision is binding on all national courts faced with similar situations. It could influence the judgments of many other cases, such as those currently pending in Germany and the Netherlands.