Frohn shocks by defending unauthorized gambling. What did he say?
•
24 Jun 2025 •
Reading time: 3 minutes The recent statements by Martin Frohn, a senior official at the European Commission, have sparked outrage in the gambling world. By defending gambling operators without a German license but based in other EU countries, he has ignited an explosive debate over the legality of cross-border offers and the neutrality of EU institutions.
Martin Frohn, head of division at the European Commission and a seasoned official with over 25 years of service, is at the heart of a heated controversy. His recent comments on LinkedIn, in which he defends online gambling operators established in other EU member states but active in the German market without a local license, raise fundamental questions about the legality and regulation of gambling in Europe.
His statements come at a tense time: Germany is demanding massive refunds from unauthorized operators, while the European Commission has just launched infringement proceedings against Malta, partly due to its controversial legislation known as “Bill 55.”
A striking defense against national law
In his posts, Frohn downplays the label of “illegal” for games offered in Germany by operators licensed in another EU country. He states:
“It might also be interesting to look at the judgments to be enforced and ask how they fit into the EU internal market: nullity of contracts between online gambling providers licensed in an EU member state.”
He thus implies that the illegality of an offer in Germany may not stem from a serious offense, but simply from a failure to comply with local formalities, despite holding a valid license elsewhere in the Union.
These remarks are sharply criticized by legal experts and consumer advocates, who point out that EU law allows member states to individually regulate their gambling markets, as confirmed multiple times by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).
A direct critique of legal actions
Frohn also questions the validity of legal actions taken by German players seeking to recover losses from unlicensed operators. He quips:
“A good business model for players: if I win, great, and if not, it’s illegal and I get my money back.”
In other words, he suggests players are taking advantage of a double-standard system. This opinion directly clashes with the legal arguments put forward by specialized lawyers such as Dr. Patrick Redell. According to Redell, these lawsuits are not opportunistic but a logical consequence of operators violating German law.
A position at odds with the Commission?
One of the most troubling aspects of the matter is that Frohn’s statements contradict the official line of the European Commission. While Brussels is taking action against Malta for failing to properly oversee its gambling operators, Frohn is effectively defending them.
Some observers see this as a form of institutional dissonance. How can a senior official publicly support a stance so far removed from that of his employer without undermining the neutrality expected from his role?
A worrying closeness to Maltese interests?
Moreover, Frohn’s arguments appear closely aligned with those of Maltese online gambling operators. While this does not necessarily imply bias, it raises a legitimate question: can an EU representative’s discourse reflect the interests of an economic group so closely, at the risk of eroding public trust in European regulation?
This perceived alignment between his statements and the commonly used defense arguments of offshore operators could undermine the credibility of EU institutions in their efforts to combat non-compliant gambling offerings.