The European Union is a single market for goods and services, yet online gambling remains split into 27 national markets. An operator licensed in one member state cannot simply serve customers in another. The reason lies in more than 30 years of case law from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), which has accepted that gambling is special. This explainer sets out the principles, the landmark cases and where things stand in October 2026.
The legal starting point
Two freedoms in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union are relevant:
- Freedom to provide services (Article 56 TFEU): a business established in one member state may offer services in others.
- Freedom of establishment (Article 49 TFEU): a business may set up in another member state.
Gambling regulation that blocks foreign operators clearly restricts these freedoms. The question has always been whether the restriction can be justified. Gambling was deliberately left out of the Services Directive (2006/123/EC) and the E-Commerce Directive’s country-of-origin principle, so there is no secondary legislation harmonising it.
Landmark judgments
| Case | Year | What the Court said |
|---|---|---|
| Schindler (C-275/92) | 1994 | Lotteries are a “service”; restrictions can be justified by moral, religious and cultural factors and the risk of crime and fraud |
| Läärä (C-124/97) | 1999 | A single licensed public body (Finland’s slot-machine monopoly) can be compatible with EU law |
| Zenatti (C-67/98) | 1999 | Restrictions must genuinely aim to reduce gambling opportunities; financing public causes may only be an incidental benefit |
| Gambelli (C-243/01) | 2003 | Criminal penalties for Italian agents of a UK bookmaker restrict free movement; restrictions must be consistent and systematic, so a state cannot restrict gambling while encouraging it for revenue |
| Placanica (C-338/04) | 2007 | Italy’s exclusion of listed companies from tenders was disproportionate; people cannot be penalised for lacking a licence they were unlawfully barred from obtaining |
| Liga Portuguesa (C-42/07) | 2009 | Portugal may ban a Gibraltar-licensed operator online; member states need not recognise other states’ licences, and online gambling carries distinct risks |
| Sporting Exchange (C-203/08), Ladbrokes (C-258/08) | 2010 | Monopolies or single licences are permissible; a monopoly may advertise to channel players from illegal markets, but not to stimulate demand |
| Markus Stoß (C-316/07) and Carmen Media (C-46/08) | 2010 | Germany’s sports-betting monopoly was inconsistent because the state promoted other forms of gambling |
| Pfleger (C-390/12) | 2014 | National courts must assess the actual effects of a regime, not just the stated aims |
The test in plain English
From these cases a standard test emerges. A national restriction on gambling services is compatible with EU law if it:
- Pursues a legitimate public-interest aim, such as consumer protection, preventing addiction, fighting fraud and crime, or public order. Raising tax revenue is not a valid aim in itself.
- Is suitable and consistent. It must genuinely pursue that aim in a systematic way. A state that warns about the dangers of gambling while aggressively promoting its own monopoly may fail this test.
- Is proportionate, going no further than necessary.
- Is non-discriminatory and applied transparently, particularly in licence tenders.
Member states enjoy a wide margin of discretion. They may choose different levels of protection, which is why Sweden can run an open market while Norway, an EEA state bound by the same freedoms through the EEA Agreement, keeps a monopoly.
The Commission’s approach
The European Commission once pursued infringement cases against several member states over gambling monopolies. In December 2017 it closed all pending infringement procedures and complaints, saying national courts were better placed to handle them. Its main policy document remains the 2014 Recommendation on principles for protecting consumers and players of online gambling services. The recommendation is non-binding and covers registration, age checks, limits and self-exclusion.
EU law still reaches the sector in other ways:
- Anti-money laundering: gambling providers are obliged entities under the EU AML framework, which moves to a directly applicable regulation from July 2027. See anti-money laundering in gambling.
- Advertising and media: the Audiovisual Media Services Directive protects minors in broadcast and video-sharing content.
- Data protection and consumer law: GDPR and the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive apply to operators like any other business.
The player-refund wave and C-440/23
Since around 2020, thousands of players in Germany and Austria have sued operators, many licensed in Malta, to recover losses made when online casino games were illegal in their home country. Malta responded in 2023 with a Gaming Act amendment (often called “Bill 55”, Article 56A). It allows Maltese courts to refuse recognition of foreign judgments against Malta-licensed operators where the activity was lawful under Maltese law.
On 16 April 2026 the Court of Justice ruled in case C-440/23, a reference from a Maltese court about a German player’s claim. The Court held that:
- EU law does not preclude a member state from banning online casino games, virtual slot machines and certain types of betting.
- A licence and supervision in another member state does not make such a ban incompatible with EU law.
- Germany’s switch to a licensing system in July 2021 did not retroactively invalidate the earlier ban.
- National law may treat contracts for prohibited services as void and allow players to recover stakes. Whether a claim is abusive or in bad faith is a matter for national law.
The judgment strengthens national regulators and the position of claimants. As of October 2026, how it plays out against Malta’s Article 56A, and in related references from German courts, is still being worked through. Expect further litigation.
What this means
For players, the lesson is that “licensed in the EU” does not mean “legal where you live”. Check whether an operator holds a licence in your own country; our guide on how to check if a gambling site is licensed explains how. For businesses, the single market offers little help, and each market must be entered on its own terms. This article is general information, not legal advice.
Frequently asked questions
Can an operator licensed in Malta legally serve players across the EU?
Not automatically. The Court of Justice has repeatedly held that member states need not recognise licences issued elsewhere, and can require a local licence or ban certain products outright.
Has the European Commission harmonised gambling rules?
No. The Commission closed its infringement cases against member states in 2017. Apart from a 2014 non-binding recommendation on online consumer protection, it has left gambling policy to national governments. EU anti-money laundering and advertising laws still apply to the sector.
What did case C-440/23 decide?
On 16 April 2026 the Court ruled that EU law does not preclude a national ban on online casino games and some types of betting, even for operators licensed in another member state. It also held that national law may treat contracts for prohibited services as void, allowing players to claim back losses.
Is this legal advice?
No. This is a general overview. Cross-border gambling disputes are complex and fact-specific, so take advice from a qualified lawyer.
Important: This article is general information, not legal, financial or medical advice. Rules change — always confirm with the relevant regulator. If gambling is causing you harm, free support is available.