Austria Extends Director Liability in Gambling Loss Disputes

(AsiaGameHub) –   Austria’s Supreme Court has determined that executive directors may be held personally liable and accountable for online gambling disputes that breach tort law.

Oberster Gerichtshof (OGH) issued its ruling following the recent opinion by CJEU Advocate General Nicholas Emiliou regarding the prolonged Wunner Case dispute.

In late January, AG Emiliou from Cyprus ruled that liability for online gambling losses can be pursued under member states’ tort laws. Tort law is acknowledged as a civil law area concerning harm to individuals, whether physical, personal, or financial.

The AG’s opinion has been applied to a ten-year dispute involving Austrian courts seeking compensation for player losses from online gambling operators lacking domestic licenses. This state enforcement has been challenged by Malta’s government, which invoked Bill 55 to question the ruling’s validity.

Supported by the AG’s opinion, the OGH holds that responsibility in these disputes can transcend “structural limitations” and extend to those managing online gambling licenses.

Consequently, Austrian courts may utilize “protective orders and laws” provided under the 1989 Austria Gambling Act.

The ruling is seen as a novel mechanism from the OGH enabling Austrian courts to hold online gambling operator management responsible, whereas loss accountability has previously been considered a corporate matter.

Austrian media observed that “The OGH’s decision represents a move away from corporate protection toward personal risk, as Austrian courts attempt to surmount cross-border enforcement obstacles.”

By expanding liability to directors, the Supreme Court has effectively pierced the corporate veil, allowing claimants to target individuals instead of depending exclusively on the legal entity.

The OGH’s latest move could substantially transform gambling litigation in Austrian courts, especially in cases where corporate claims are challenging to enforce across different jurisdictions.

Malta stands by Bill-55 protections

Austria’s position remains at odds with Malta’s protection of its licensing framework. In 2025, Malta passed Bill 55, adding Article 56A to the Malta Gaming Act. This measure aims to bar Maltese courts from recognizing or enforcing foreign judgments against Malta-licensed operators when such decisions are considered incompatible with national public policy.

Malta contends that Bill 55 constitutes a legitimate legislative protection, safeguarding the Malta Gaming Authority’s authority and its regulatory system’s integrity.

Officials assert that numerous claims from Austria and Germany pertain to eras of regulatory change.

Regarding Germany, disputes primarily involve the pre-2021 period before the Fourth Interstate Treaty on Gambling (GlüStV 2021) took effect.

Concerning Austria, Malta highlights incomplete regulatory structures, since online gambling stays limited under a state monopoly system operated by Austrian Lotteries’ Win2Day.

Maltese courts believe that Austria and Germany’s inconsistent frameworks weaken the validity of cross-border claims. In 2026, Malta reaffirmed its long-held position that operators have faced retroactive and excessive enforcement measures that erode the Malta Gambling Authority’s (MGA) governance.

Notwithstanding Malta’s opposition, the OGH has indicated that domestic courts should be capable of strictly enforcing tort laws and, when required, extending liability to the “individuals behind corporate structures.”

Austria… Accountability by any means necessary

The decision does not establish new laws but rather reinterprets current liability principles to bolster enforcement of Austria’s Gambling Act, regardless of whether regulatory updates are needed.

As the supreme court of an EU member state, the OGH declares it must offer any reasonable avenues for recovering damages when corporate enforcement fails.

For the broader industry, the consequences are substantial. Expanding liability to managing directors creates a new tier of risk for operators functioning in grey or unlicensed markets.

Although cross-border enforcement difficulties persist, the trend is evident: European courts are progressively prepared to explore alternative accountability pathways, with legal exposure no longer limited to corporate entities but reaching those who manage them.

However, any enforcement action or settlement stays uncertain, as Malta demonstrates no willingness to yield. After twenty years of legal deadlock, this conflict appears destined to persist into 2026 and beyond.