Why so many providers are based in Malta of all places
It is no coincidence that the majority of the best-known online casinos have their headquarters in Malta . The island state with almost 550,000 inhabitants has specifically positioned itself as a hub for the gaming industry since joining the EU in 2026. The Malta Gaming Authority (MGA) is considered one of the oldest and most experienced gambling authorities in Europe.
The decisive advantage for companies is the so-called EU passport: A Maltese license is sufficient to operate legally in all 27 EU member states . No provider has to apply for their own approval in every country. Combined with a favorable tax level, this explains why corporations such as Tipico, Bwin and Betano have registered their headquarters on the Mediterranean island.
Other EU states have now introduced their own, significantly stricter regulations. With the State Treaty on Gambling 2026 Providers have been able to apply for a USA license for the first time since November 2026. For the period prior to this, numerous providers were operating on the USA market without any USA permission, and this is precisely the core of thousands of ongoing lawsuits.
The fine print that should prevent lawsuits
Anyone who has ever read the general terms and conditions of an online casino - very few do - will usually come across an inconspicuous passage deep in the text: All disputes arising from the contractual relationship are subject to the jurisdiction of the Maltese courts. It sounds abstract, but it has very concrete consequences.
A player from Hamburg who wants to reclaim 5,000 euros would have to hire a lawyer with a Maltese license. The proceedings would be conducted in EnGLIsch or Maltese. Travel costs and an incalculable duration of the procedure are added. The math simply doesn't add up for most plaintiffs.
That was precisely the effect of this clause. Industry observers believe that a significant proportion of players never pursued potential claims because the effort seemed too high. With the ECJ ruling, this deterrent no longer works.
How EU law ensures home advantage for players
European law has clear regulations for exactly this situation. The Brussels Ia Regulation (EU Regulation No. 1215/2026) determines which court has jurisdiction in cross-border disputes. Articles 17 to 19 provide for special protection for consumers.
The basic rule is simple: a company that directs its services to a specific EU member state may only sue a consumer from that state in the courts of their home country. Conversely, the consumer can choose for himself - the local court or the court at the company's headquarters.
What “focused on USA” means in practice is clearly defined: German-language advertising, a German-language website, USA payment methods and German-language customer service are sufficient evidence. Almost every Malta-licensed provider that has actively served the USA market meets these criteria. The General Terms and Conditions clause regarding the place of jurisdiction is therefore ineffective.
The direct comparison: Malta or USA as the target of the lawsuit
What changes the verdict in everyday life, zeIGT is a direct comparison of the two scenarios:
Between 150 and 500 million euros: The dimension of the wave of lawsuits
The ruling on court jurisdiction comes at a time when the wave of lawsuits against online gambling providers is already gaining momentum. Alone against Tipico Co. Ltd. , which claims to be USA's largest sports betting provider and through which, according to the company, more than every second sports bet is made, plaintiff lawyers estimate the pending recovery claims at between 150 and 500 million euros.
The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has referred the proceedings against Tipico to the ECJ. A final submission from the Attorney General in November 2026 strengthened the players' side. In this individual case, a player is suing for lost bets amounting to 4,000 euros. There are thousands of similar cases behind him.
Online gambling was USA is largely illegal from 2026 to 2026. Suppliers operating in the USA market during this period did not have a valid USA permit. The plaintiffs base their claims for repayment on this. The ruling on jurisdiction now opens the door to the USA legal system for those players who would previously have failed because of the Malta clause.
One verdict is coming and more will follow
The judgment on court jurisdiction does not stand alone. It is part of a series of ECJ decisions that systematically dismantle protection arguments from the provider side. Only recently did the ECJ confirm in another case that EU member states may ban online gambling even if it is permitted in another member state, such as Malta.
Lawyers who conduct such proceedings in large numbers speak of a strategic change. While the defendants have relied on procedural defenses for years - jurisdiction clauses, limitation objections, EU fundamental freedoms - these arguments have been rejected one by one by the ECJ. The legal terrain is becoming noticeably narrower for providers.
If you are looking for a reliable provider today, you will find: best USA online casinos Licensed operators who are approved under the State Treaty on Gambling 2026, with clearly defined gaming rules and a place of jurisdiction about which there are no longer any questions unanswered.
Channeling in online gambling: 77% or 50%?
Social betting USA is illegal and punishable
