EU Gambling Laws Explained: National Regulation, Not One EU Law

The Fundamental Principle: Gambling Is a National Competence

One of the most persistent misconceptions about gambling in Europe is that obtaining a license from Malta, Gibraltar, or Curacao grants an operator the right to offer services throughout the European Union. This is categorically false. There is no single EU gambling license. Each of the 27 EU member states retains exclusive authority to regulate gambling within its borders.

This principle is not a regulatory oversight or a matter awaiting harmonization. It reflects a deliberate legal framework established in EU treaty law and confirmed repeatedly by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). Understanding why gambling remains nationally regulated requires examining the legal foundations of EU competence and the unique characteristics of gambling as a regulated activity.

The European Commission has consistently stated that it has no plans to propose EU-wide gambling legislation. According to the European Commission's gambling sector overview, member states are free to organize gambling services according to their own traditions and policies, subject only to fundamental EU treaty principles.

Treaty Foundations: Why Member States Retain Control

The legal basis for national gambling regulation lies in Articles 49 (freedom of establishment) and 56 (freedom to provide services) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). While these provisions generally prohibit restrictions on cross-border services, they contain critical exceptions that apply to gambling.

The Public Policy Exception

Article 52 TFEU permits member states to restrict freedom of establishment and services on grounds of public policy, public security, or public health. Gambling has been consistently recognized as falling within these exceptions because it raises concerns about:

• Consumer protection: Risk of problem gambling, financial harm, and addiction
• Prevention of crime: Money laundering, fraud, and match-fixing risks
• Public morality: Cultural and religious values regarding gambling vary significantly across Europe
• Social order: Concerns about gambling's broader social impacts

The CJEU has affirmed these grounds in numerous landmark cases, establishing that member states possess broad discretion in determining their gambling policies. For comprehensive analysis of CJEU gambling jurisprudence, see the European Gaming and Betting Association's regulatory resources.

Key Court of Justice Rulings

Several CJEU rulings have shaped the legal landscape governing EU gambling regulation:

The Liga Portuguesa ruling is particularly significant. The Court explicitly stated that a gambling operator holding a valid license in one member state cannot claim automatic authorization to provide services in another. Each country retains the right to establish its own licensing requirements.

The Principle of Subsidiarity

Beyond treaty exceptions, gambling regulation reflects the broader EU principle of subsidiarity established in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. This principle provides that the EU should only act where objectives cannot be sufficiently achieved by member states and can be better achieved at Union level.

Gambling regulation fails this test for several reasons:

• Cultural diversity: Attitudes toward gambling vary enormously across Europe. Nordic countries historically favor state monopolies; Mediterranean countries have embraced licensed markets; some Eastern European states maintain restrictive approaches
• No cross-border efficiency gains: Unlike financial services or telecommunications, gambling regulation does not obviously benefit from EU-wide harmonization
• Democratic legitimacy: Citizens in different countries have different views on gambling, reflected in their national democratic processes

How This Creates a Regulatory Patchwork

The consequence of national competence is a fragmented European gambling market with significant variation across jurisdictions. Our Country Index documents these differences in detail, but the broad categories include:

1. Licensed Competitive Markets

Countries like Germany, Spain, Denmark, and Malta operate open licensing systems where multiple private operators can compete after obtaining national authorization. Requirements, taxes, and permitted products vary, but the fundamental model allows market entry through a regulated application process.

2. State Monopolies

Finland and Poland maintain state-controlled gambling monopolies. Private operators are prohibited, and all gambling must occur through state-owned entities. Finland announced plans in 2026 to transition toward a licensing model, but implementation remains uncertain.

3. Partial Liberalization

France exemplifies partial liberalization: sports betting, horse racing, and poker are open to licensed private operators, but online casino games remain prohibited. This vertical segmentation creates complex compliance requirements for operators seeking to offer multiple products.

4. High-Barrier Markets

Italy and Greece impose substantial licensing fees and tax rates that effectively restrict market entry to well-capitalized operators. Italy's 2026 online gambling licenses cost 7 million euros each plus annual revenue-based taxes.

What EU Law Does Affect Gambling

While gambling licensing remains national, EU law does affect gambling operators in important ways. These "horizontal" regulations apply regardless of the gambling product or licensing jurisdiction:

Anti-Money Laundering Directives

The EU's Anti-Money Laundering framework, culminating in the Sixth AML Directive and establishment of the Anti-Money Laundering Authority (AMLA) in 2026, imposes substantial compliance obligations on gambling operators. These include:

• Customer Due Diligence (CDD) at specified transaction thresholds
• Ongoing transaction monitoring for suspicious activity
• Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) filing with national Financial Intelligence Units
• Record-keeping requirements
• Risk-based approach to AML compliance

For details on how AML requirements interact with cryptocurrency gambling, see our dedicated guide on digital currency compliance.

General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)

The GDPR governs how gambling operators collect, process, store, and share personal data of EU residents. Key requirements include lawful basis for processing, data minimization, purpose limitation, storage limitation, and comprehensive data subject rights including access, rectification, erasure, and portability. The official GDPR portal provides detailed guidance on compliance obligations.

Consumer Protection Regulations

EU consumer protection directives apply to gambling services, including requirements for:

• Clear and accurate pre-contractual information
• Prohibition of unfair commercial practices
• Transparent terms and conditions
• Alternative dispute resolution mechanisms

Payment Services Directive 2 (PSD2)

Payment processing for gambling falls under PSD2, affecting how operators handle deposits, withdrawals, and payment service provider relationships. Strong Customer Authentication (SCA) requirements and payment initiation service regulations have operational implications for gambling platforms.

The Malta License Misconception

Perhaps no aspect of EU gambling regulation is more misunderstood than the status of Malta Gaming Authority (MGA) licenses. While Malta operates one of Europe's most comprehensive gambling regulatory frameworks, an MGA license does not authorize operations throughout the EU.

An MGA license permits:

• Offering gambling services to Maltese residents
• Targeting markets without their own licensing regimes (where not explicitly prohibited)
• Operating from Malta as a base of operations

An MGA license does not permit:

• Offering services to residents of countries with their own licensing requirements (e.g., Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Netherlands, Sweden) without obtaining those national licenses
• Circumventing national advertising restrictions
• Avoiding national payment blocking measures

The same principle applies to licenses from Gibraltar, Isle of Man, Curacao, or any other jurisdiction. These licenses have no legal effect in countries that require their own national authorization.

Enforcement and the Grey Market

The fragmented regulatory landscape creates a substantial "grey market" of operators targeting EU residents from offshore jurisdictions without proper national licenses. EU countries combat this through various enforcement mechanisms:

Payment Blocking

Germany, Netherlands, and other countries require financial institutions to block transactions to unlicensed gambling operators. The Dutch Kansspelautoriteit (KSA) significantly expanded payment blocking enforcement in 2026.

ISP Blocking

Some jurisdictions, including Italy and Belgium, order internet service providers to block access to unlicensed gambling websites. Effectiveness varies due to VPN usage and technical circumvention.

Advertising Prohibitions

Countries increasingly prohibit advertising for unlicensed operators. Lithuania's comprehensive gambling advertising ban, effective July 2025, includes prohibition of any promotional content for unlicensed platforms.

Affiliate Marketing Restrictions

Affiliate marketers face liability for promoting unlicensed operators in regulated markets. Netherlands requires affiliates to demonstrate that 95% of their audience is 24 years or older, and prohibits promotion of unlicensed operators entirely.

Will the EU Ever Harmonize Gambling Regulation?

Despite periodic calls for harmonization, EU-wide gambling regulation remains unlikely for the foreseeable future. Several factors contribute to this assessment:

• No political momentum: Neither the European Commission nor member states are actively pursuing harmonization
• Cultural resistance: Countries with restrictive approaches (Finland, Poland) would oppose liberalization; countries with liberal approaches would resist restrictions
• Legal barriers: Treaty amendments would be required to transfer competence to the EU level
• Industry division: Large operators benefit from barriers to entry; smaller operators cannot afford multi-jurisdiction licensing

The more likely trajectory involves continued national regulation with enhanced coordination on cross-cutting issues like AML, responsible gambling, and data protection. The European Commission's Expert Group on Gambling Services facilitates voluntary cooperation without formal harmonization.

Practical Implications for Operators

For gambling operators seeking to serve EU markets, the national competence framework creates significant operational requirements:

Implications for Players

For individuals seeking to gamble online, the national regulation framework means:

• Legal protection varies: Playing with nationally-licensed operators provides regulatory protection; offshore operators offer no such guarantees
• Self-exclusion scope: National self-exclusion registers only cover domestically-licensed operators
• Dispute resolution: Licensed operators must participate in ADR schemes; offshore operators may not
• Payment reliability: Licensed operators face regulatory oversight of payment processing; offshore operators do not

Frequently Asked Questions

Related Resources

For more detailed information on gambling regulations in specific countries, explore our complete country index. For terminology and concepts used throughout this guide, consult our comprehensive glossary.

Additional topics that may be of interest:

• EU Gambling License Cost Estimator - Compare licensing fees and capital requirements across jurisdictions
• Cryptocurrency and Bitcoin Gambling in the EU - How crypto payment regulations interact with gambling licensing
• Self-Exclusion Systems Across EU Countries - National responsible gambling frameworks
• CS2 & Skin Gambling in the EU - Regulatory gray zones for esports and virtual item gambling

Last Updated: December 2025