Bill 55 Malta: legal impact on Dutch players and recovery

Bill 55 protects Maltese casinos against foreign judgments, making the recovery of losses from providers like Unibet virtually impossible. The European Commission has initiated an infringement procedure for violation of EU law, but until a final ruling by the European Court of Justice, the blockade remains in force. Dutch players are advised to only play at Ksa license holders to safeguard their rights.

What is Bill 55 and how does it block Dutch claims?

Bill 55 is a controversial Maltese legislative amendment that blocks the enforcement of foreign court rulings against locally licensed gambling companies. For Dutch players, this means that judgments from the Hague District Court, in which contracts are declared void, are often unenforceable in Malta. This law creates a legal shield for operators such as Trannel International Limited, although its compatibility with EU law is being reviewed by the European Court of Justice.

The core of the Gaming (Amendment) Act

This law, part of Maltese gambling legislation, places the activities of online casinos under Malta's public policy. As a result, Maltese judges can decide to ignore judgments from other member states, which goes against the principle of mutual recognition within the EU. Lawyers like Benzi Loonstein argue that this construction violates European legal principles and have called on the Dutch government to take action.

Immunity for MGA license holders

The Malta Gaming Authority (MGA) defends Bill 55 as protecting the integrity of the regulated market, but critics see it as a way to evade claims. Operators like Green Feather Online Limited and Trannel International Limited benefit from this scheme, allowing them to avoid millions of euros in refunds. The MGA states that the law does not constitute a general ban, but is specifically aimed at enforcement through Maltese courts.

Role of lawyers like Benzi Loonstein

Legal experts are trying to bypass the blockade by focusing on assets outside of Malta. Because the Hague District Court has ruled that agreements without a Dutch license are void, players remain entitled to recovery. Loonstein points out that companies like Green Feather Online Limited may indeed have disposable assets in other jurisdictions where EU rules still apply. Players must therefore look strategically at enforcement possibilities outside the island.

Reaction of the European Union and infringement procedure

The European Commission has launched a formal infringement procedure against Malta because Bill 55 undermines the mutual recognition of judgments. For Dutch players, this means that the legislation is likely in conflict with the Brussels I-bis regulation, although the European Court of Justice has yet to make a final ruling. The impact on claims remains uncertain for the time being, but EU pressure is increasing.

Start of formal infringement procedure by Brussels

The European Commission, the executive body of the EU, announced a formal infringement procedure against Malta on Thursday. This procedure is based on the violation of the European Regulation on jurisdiction and the recognition of judgments in civil and commercial matters, better known as the Brussels I-bis regulation. According to Brussels, Malta violates these rules by forcing its courts to refuse the recognition of foreign judgments against Maltese casinos.

This action offers some hope for affected players, but does not guarantee an immediate refund. The Commission argues that Malta is making an unauthorized exception based on national public policy. While the procedure is ongoing, Maltese operators remain protected within their own borders for the time being. Players must realize that legal proceedings are lengthy and offer no guarantee of success.

Criticism from MEPs

Sabine Verheyen and the European Parliament have raised questions regarding the status of the law. Her correspondence shows that the Commission is investigating the law, but that to date no formal debate has been planned within Parliament. Verheyen emphasizes that the protection of player rights must be central, but acknowledges that the political discussion has not yet fully crystallized.

Although Verheyen is critical, the ball is currently in the court of the judicial authorities. The lack of a direct parliamentary debate means that pressure is primarily exerted through the Commission's administrative route. This delays a possible political condemnation of the practice, keeping the focus on the ongoing legal review.

Incompatibility with EU fundamental rights

The core of the conflict lies in the Brussels I-bis regulation, which governs the mutual recognition of court judgments within the EU. The European Commission argues that by enacting Bill 55, Malta undermines trust between national legal systems. The law forces Maltese judges to disregard judgments from other member states, such as the Netherlands, if they conflict with Maltese public policy.

This issue has now been referred to the European Court of Justice via preliminary questions from the Vienna Commercial Court. The Court must assess whether Malta is allowed to use EU law to ignore foreign judgments. If the European Court of Justice rules that Bill 55 conflicts with fundamental freedoms, this could lead to the annulment of the protective clauses for gambling companies. Until then, legal uncertainty remains for both operators and players.

Consequences for recovery and player protection

The impact of Bill 55 Malta on Dutch players is primarily procedural: the law blocks the automatic enforcement of Dutch judgments in Malta, but does not abolish the right to compensation. For Dutch players, this means that a won case at the Hague District Court does not directly lead to payout if the provider only has Maltese assets. However, the Kansspelautoriteit (Ksa) continues to enforce based on the Remote Gambling Act, while the European Commission enters the fray to safeguard Player Protection and Consumer Protection within the EU.

Difficulties in executing judgments

Yes, enforcement is made more difficult. The law classifies the activities of online casinos as part of Maltese public policy, meaning that court rulings from other EU member states are currently not recognized there. This creates a legal shield for operators such as Trannel International Limited, which were ordered by the Hague District Court to refund Dutch players.

The core of the problem lies in the tension with the Brussels I-bis regulation, which normally enforces mutual recognition of judgments. By linking Bill 55 to 'public policy', Malta is attempting to bypass these European agreements. However, experts point out that this protection is vulnerable. If the provider has bank accounts or subsidiaries outside Malta, those assets remain subject to seizure. The focus thus shifts from winning the case to locating executable assets in other jurisdictions.

Position of the Kansspelautoriteit

The Ksa strictly enforces the Remote Gambling Act, which legalized the market as of October 1, 2021. Providers without a Dutch license operate illegally, regardless of their Maltese license. The regulator supports the critical stance of the European Commission, as Bill 55 undermines the common European rules for Consumer Protection.

Although the Ksa is not a direct party in civil damages cases, their enforcement policy provides the legal basis on which Dutch players build their claims. The authority emphasizes that a Maltese license is not a license to ignore national legislation. By working with European partners, the Ksa tries to increase the pressure on Malta so that illegal practices are no longer covered by local legislation that violates EU law.

Risks outside the legal circuit

Yes, legal certainty decreases significantly. Players at providers with only a Maltese license fall outside the Dutch protection network, which includes mandatory deposit limits and exclusion from playing via Cruks. Bill 55 reinforces this risk by effectively blocking the right of recourse for lost money within Malta.

With a Ksa license, providers are bound by strict requirements for fair play and complaint handling. For Maltese providers invoking Bill 55, this enforceability is partly lacking due to the refusal to execute foreign judgments. The advice is therefore clear: choose providers with a Dutch license to guarantee full Consumer Protection. Those who play at illegal providers anyway must realize that recovery is complex, expensive, and uncertain, despite recent victories in the Dutch courts.

Practical alternatives and safe play

The impact of Bill 55 Malta on Dutch players is that recovery from Maltese providers becomes virtually impossible, making the switch to Ksa-licensed casinos the only safe option. Players must immediately stop using illegal platforms and choose providers with the 'Kansspelautoriteit License Holder' quality mark to guarantee legal protection and payment security.

Choosing Ksa-licensed providers

The Dutch market offers a growing number of legal options that comply with strict consumer protection rules. BetCity and Toto.nl are prominent examples of providers with a full Dutch license, meaning they are under the direct supervision of the Kansspelautoriteit. Unlike Maltese entities, these parties are obliged to monitor playing behavior and apply limits.

An important distinction is the corporate structure. While many Maltese sites operate under structures such as Trannel International Limited (the license holder behind Unibet), Dutch license holders are locally based and approachable. This makes Unibet in its current form without a Dutch license a risky choice, while local parties like BetCity do comply with the Remote Gambling Act. For players used to the offering of major international brands, these legal alternatives offer a similar experience without the legal risk of nullity of contracts.

Distinguishing legal vs illegal sites

No, playing at a provider with only an MGA license remains illegal for Dutch players and offers no legal protection. Recognizing legal sites is simple: check the footer of the website for the wordmark 'Kansspelautoriteit License Holder'. If this logo is missing, or if you only see references to the Malta Gaming Authority (MGA), then it is an illegal provider.

Players who continue to play at these Maltese gambling companies take a significant financial risk. Due to Bill 55, judgments from Dutch judges declaring contracts void cannot be enforced in Malta. Even if you have proof that you would have won money back at a legal provider, the chance of payout by a Maltese casino is minimal as long as this law is in force. The European Commission has already rapped Malta over the knuckles for this, but until the legislation changes, your money remains unreachable. Therefore, always choose a platform where your rights fall under Dutch law.

Safe payment methods and limits

Payment services act as a crucial firewall between players and illegal practices. Legal Dutch casinos are required to offer secure, traceable payment methods, with iDEAL being the standard for direct bank transfers. Illegal Maltese sites often use cryptocurrencies or obscure e-wallets to bypass regular financial controls.

Using regulated payment providers linked to Ksa holders guarantees that transactions are monitored for money laundering and addiction risks. If a site does not accept iDEAL, but does ask for deposits via methods that do not require identity verification, this is a major red flag. In addition, legal providers set mandatory deposit limits, which is lacking with many Maltese competitors. By only playing at providers that are transparent about their payment services and limit settings, you not only minimize the risk of loss, but also ensure a responsible gaming environment.

About This Article - Editorial Standards

Author:
Sarah Weber - Casino Tester & Bonus Analyst

Factually reviewed by:
Dr. Markus Hoffmann - Senior iGaming Compliance Analyst

Last updated: 2026-08-12.

This article on "bill 55 malta impact on dutch players" was written by Sarah Weber and factually reviewed by Dr. Markus Hoffmann. Both regularly update the content for changes in regulation, licensing and bonus terms. All references to licences, regulators and statutes link to public sources (the local gambling regulator, the applicable local gambling statute).

About the Author

8+ years reviewing casinos, 200+ personally tested platforms across the EU and globally. Former member of the eCOGRA Player Advocacy Program (2018-2022). Specialty: wagering requirements, withdrawal workflows, customer-support evaluation.

About the Reviewer

12+ years in the iGaming industry, including 5 years as a compliance consultant for licensed operators across multiple regulated markets. PhD in Economic Mathematics. Focus areas: bonus mathematics, wagering analysis, and player-protection systems.

Responsible Gambling

Gambling can be addictive. If you feel you are losing control of your play, please reach out to the relevant problem-gambling helpline or use the national self-exclusion register (the relevant national self-exclusion register). Set personal deposit and loss limits BEFORE you play with real money. Operator pauses and cooldown tools exist to keep play sustainable.

Legal Notice

The information in this article is provided for editorial and comparison purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Players are responsible for compliance with local regulations.