The Supreme Court of Austria has ruled that executive directors could face personal liability and accountability for online gambling disputes that have violated tort law.
Oberster Gerichtshof (OGH) makes its judgement as a following order to the recent determination by CJEU Advocate General Nicholas Emiliou on the long-standing dispute of the Wunner Case.
At the close of January, AG Emiliou of Cyprus determined that the liabilities of online gambling losses can be charged under the tort laws of member states. Tort laws are recognised as a branch of civil law related to an individual’s harm, be it physical, personal or financial.
The AG’s determination has been applied to a decade-long conflict between Austrian courts seeking compensation for player losses of online gambling operators that don’t hold licenses in the domestic markets. A state enforcement that has been overridden by the government of Malta, as it cited Bill 55 in the illegitimacy of the ruling.
Backed by the AG’s determination, the OGH believes that the accountability of the dispute can move beyond “structural limitations” and be applied to the management of online gambling licences.
As such, Austrian courts can use ‘protective orders and laws’ granted under the Austria Gambling Act of 1989.
The decision is viewed as a new mechanism granted by OGH for Austrian courts to hold the management of online gambling operators liable, as to date accountability of losses has been treated as a corporate discipline.
Austrian media noted that “The OGH’s decision marks a shift from corporate protection towards personal risk, as Austrian courts seek to overcome barriers to cross-border enforcement.”
By extending liability to directors, the Supreme Court has effectively pierced the corporate veil, enabling claimants to pursue individuals rather than relying solely on the legal entity.
The latest intervention by the OGH could significantly reshape gambling litigation by Austrian courts, particularly in cases where corporate claims prove difficult to enforce across jurisdictions.
Malta stands by Bill-55 protections
Austria’s stance continues to conflict with Malta’s defence of its licensing regime. In 2025, Malta enacted Bill 55, introducing Article 56A of the Malta Gaming Act. The provision was designed to prevent Maltese courts from recognising or enforcing foreign judgments against Malta-licensed operators where such rulings are deemed contrary to national public policy.
Malta maintains that Bill 55 is a legitimate legislative safeguard, protecting the authority of the Malta Gaming Authority and the integrity of its regulatory framework.
Officials argue that many claims brought by Austria and Germany relate to periods of regulatory transition.
In the case of Germany, disputes largely concern the pre-2021 phase prior to the implementation of the Fourth Interstate Treaty on Gambling (GlüStV 2021).
With regards to Austria, Malta points to incomplete regulatory frameworks, as online gambling remains restricted under a state monopoly framework led by Win2Day of Austrian Lotteries.
Malta courts view that irregular frameworks of Austria and Germany undermine the credibility of cross-border claims. In 2026, Malta reinforced its long-standing view that operators have been subjected to retrospective and disproportionate enforcement actions that undermine the governance of the Malta Gambling Authority (MGA)
Despite Malta’s resistance, OGH has signalled that domestic courts must be able to apply a rigorous enforcement of tort laws and, where necessary, be extended to the “individuals behind corporate structures.”
Austria… Accountability by any means necessary
The ruling does not create new legislation but instead reinterprets existing liability principles to strengthen enforcement outcomes of Austria’s Gambling Act, irrespective of any need for modernisation of regulatory provisions.
As a supreme court of an EU member state, OGH states that it must provide any reasonable pathways to recover damages where corporate enforcement proves ineffective.
For the wider industry, the implications are significant. The extension of liability to managing directors introduces a new level of exposure for operators active in grey or unlicensed markets.
While cross-border enforcement challenges remain, the direction is clear: European courts are increasingly willing to pursue alternative routes to accountability, with legal risk no longer confined to the corporate entity but extending to those directing its operations.
Yet any enforcement or settlement remains uncertain as Malta shows no sign of conceding any ground. Following two decades of a legal quagmire, this dispute looks set to continue in 2026 and beyond.
