On 4 September 2025, the opinion of Advocate General (“A-G”) Emiliou of the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) on preliminary questions from a Maltese court regarding player claims against gambling operators was delivered and published. Although the Maltese court requested clarification on seven preliminary questions, the opinion addressed only one question, as instructed by the CJEU. Most importantly, the A-G notes that national gambling laws incompatible with EU laws should lead to finding player claims unfounded and provides further valuable insights in the context of player claims from an EU perspective.

Reducing seven questions to one

In 2023, a Maltese court dealing with the case of 'FB v. European Lotto and Betting Ltd and Deutsche Lotto und Sportwetten Ltd' (hereafter 'FB v. European Lotto and Deutsche Lotto') submitted seven preliminary questions and several sub-questions to the CJEU for clarification on a case involving a German citizen who wagered and lost while participating in games of chance offered by these companies. 

The first six questions raised by the Maltese court aimed to clarify whether Article 56 TFEU - which entails the freedom to provide services throughout the EU - should be interpreted as precluding national laws imposing general prohibitions on online slot machines or online casino games, or as precluding the recovery of stakes lost when participating in such games. The court also sought to clarify whether a justification of a breach of Article 56 TFEU for reasons of overriding interest would apply in relation to the circumstances characterising German gambling legislation. The reason why the CJEU requested that the A-G refrain from materially dealing with questions 1 to 6 remains unclear. 

Maltese courts ruling on German laws?

This does not mean that the first six questions will be completely ignored. Instead, the A-G has examined the admissibility of these questions, as they essentially raise the issue of whether the courts of one Member State (here, Malta) have jurisdiction to review the compatibility of the courts of another Member State (here, Germany) with EU law. Interestingly, the European Commission and governments of Malta, Germany, Czech Republic, Belgium and Italy have provided their views on these questions.

In cases where the law of one Member State applies while the courts of another Member State would be competent, the competent courts should be able to apply the laws of another Member State and assess whether those national laws are compatible with EU law. This applies in particular to this case, since the applicability of the prohibition on certain games of chance under German law is a key point of discussion, which the competent Maltese court should logically assess to deal with this case. 

National courts are required to review the compatibility of another member state’s laws with EU law when such issues arise in civil or commercial proceedings in view of the A-G. Granting courts these powers, however, comes with responsibilities. In the event of incompatibility, courts should confine themselves to leaving the conflicting rules in the dispute in question unapplied for the sole purpose of ruling on the merits of the claim. The A-G also mentions that, since gambling is “one of the areas in which there are considerable differences between Member States in terms of moral, religious and cultural values”, national courts should exercise caution when interpreting EU law. Consequently, courts should recognise the significant discretion that Member States have to regulate this area in accordance with their national views on the matter. 

A-G: Freedom to provide services does not preclude player claims.

The only remaining question referred to the CJEU essentially asks whether Article 56 TFEU and the abuse of rights prevents a consumer in one Member State from bringing a civil action against an operator from another Member State for the return of stakes wagered on the basis that the underlying gambling contract is invalid under applicable national laws, where the consumer participated in games of chance offered by the operator without the operator holding a licence from the consumer’s Member State. 

The A-G in essence finds there are two possible approaches in this case:

1. The national law on which the argument of invalidity of the contract is based, is incompatible with Article 56 TFEU and, if so, then the player’s claim should be rejected as unfounded (para. 92), or
2. This national law is compatible with Article 56 TFEU, then the invalidity of the gambling contract depends on national contract laws (para. 93).

Interestingly, the A-G’s ultimate answer to question 7 does not mention anything in terms of Article 56 TFEU. The A-G solely states that “the principle of prohibition of abuse of EU law does not preclude that consumer from bringing a civil claim” against gambling operators on the basis of the invalidity of a contract. So, the A-G’s answer is limited in scope and brings little practical guidance. 

'Fold, call, raise or check’?

Whether the CJEU will follow the A-G's line of reasoning and how the CJEU deals with Article 56 TFEU in this context remains to be seen. There is no date yet for a CJEU judgment on this matter, and the CJEU is probably preparing an oral hearing for another player claims case. In the Tipico-case (Case C-530/24), the German Federal Court of Justice ('Bundesgerichtshof') referred two preliminary questions to the CJEU relating to the freedom to provide gaming and betting services, and the invalidity of contracts between consumers and operators. It will certainly be known in the near future whether the CJEU will ‘call’ the current approach of the A-G in the FB v. European Lotto and Deutsche Lotto and Tipico cases.