EU Court on disputes with iGaming operators

On January 15, the Court of Justice of the European Union issued a preliminary ruling in case C-77/24 following a request from the Austrian Supreme Court.

Precedent on the application of local law

The decision concerns the interpretation of Articles 1(2)(d) and 4(1) of EU Regulation No. 864/2007 (Rome II), which governs the law applicable to non-contractual obligations.

The court stated that in disputes between players and iGaming operators without a local licence, the law of the player’s country of residence must be applied.

Background of the dispute with Titanium Brace Marketing

The case arose from a claim filed by an Austrian player who lost €18,500 in 2019–2020 on one of the brands operated by Titanium Brace Marketing, a company currently in liquidation.

The company held a Maltese licence but did not have authorisation in Austria. The player argued that the gambling contract was void and that the operator’s activity in Austria was illegal.

Liability of the company’s management

The claim was brought not against the company itself, but against two directors of Titanium. According to the claimant, under Austrian law they bear personal and joint liability for offering gambling services without a licence.

The directors challenged the jurisdiction of the Austrian courts, arguing that both the place where the damage occurred and the applicable law should be determined under Maltese law.

Position of the Court of Justice of the European Union

The EU court clarified that claims for damages resulting from participation in online games offered without a local licence fall under non-contractual liability and are subject to the Rome II Regulation.

Determining the place where the damage occurred

According to the court, the damage is deemed to have occurred in the country of the player’s habitual residence. In this case, that leads to the application of Austrian law.

At the same time, the court noted that a national court may depart from the general rule if the circumstances of the case clearly show a closer connection with another country.

Further consideration of the case

Following the clarification provided by the EU court, the Austrian Supreme Court must issue a final decision in the case, taking into account the guidance on the applicable law.

The issue has previously sparked debate within the EU, including disputes over provisions aimed at protecting operators holding an MGA licence from player claims.