Malta's gaming and consumer regulators sign complaints deal

Malta's gaming regulator and its consumer watchdog have agreed to coordinate on player complaints. The Malta Gaming Authority (MGA) and the Malta Competition and Consumer Affairs Authority (MCCAA) have signed a memorandum of understanding on consumer affairs and player protection in gaming, the MGA announced on 23 October 2026.

According to the MGA, the two authorities will take "a more coordinated approach" to consumer concerns, complaints and disputes that touch both of their remits. The memorandum sets a formal framework for cooperation, communication and the exchange of relevant information, within legal limits. The stated aim is that consumers are sent to the right authority and get the support they need. MGA chief executive Charles Mizzi and MCCAA executive chairperson Carmen Ciantar signed it.

What the release says

iGaming Times reported that the MCCAA had published no statement of its own by the afternoon of 23 October.

"Effective player protection requires more than strong regulatory frameworks," Mizzi said. It also depends, he added, on authorities "ensuring that consumers do not fall through the gaps between their respective remits." Ciantar said the agreement "formalises an already constructive relationship" between the two bodies.

Where an MGA player complaint goes today

Malta splits the work. Since 1 April 2019 the MGA's Player Support Unit no longer rules on the merits of a dispute between a player and a licensee. That job belongs to an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) body. The unit still takes complaints that a licensee's service is unlawful, or not safe, fair or transparent, and treats them as compliance matters.

The MGA's ADR Directive, last revised in July 2025, sets the rules for those disputes:

• licensees must offer ADR free of charge to any player who wants to refer a matter to an ADR body the licensee has engaged;
• the ADR body must be established in the EU or EEA and be competent for gaming disputes;
• a licensee with no ADR body engaged must refer the player to a listed one within 20 days of the player saying the dispute was not resolved;
• the ADR body's decision binds both sides, although for disputes above the reach of Malta's Small Claims Tribunal a licensee may offer non-binding options such as mediation, and must tell the player so.

General consumer law is the MCCAA's job. It enforces the Consumer Affairs Act, which covers unfair contract terms and unfair commercial practices, as iGaming Times points out. That is the part of the law a player would rely on if a bonus condition or withdrawal rule looked unfair.

Why the overlap matters

The case for cooperation showed up this week in Britain. On 21 October the Gambling Commission found that L & L Europe's one-withdrawal-at-a-time term was unfair, and the company paid £900,000 under a settlement. iGaming Times notes that the operator's head office is in Mosta, Malta. iGaming Times notes that Britain makes fair terms a licence condition, so its gambling regulator can act on such a term itself. In Malta, licensing sits with the MGA while unfair terms law sits with the MCCAA, so a question like that touches both.

How much the memorandum changes will become clear when the two authorities first act on a case together. In September the MGA also worked with another Maltese authority, the Malta Digital Innovation Authority, on a voluntary AI Gaming Charter. Separately, the EU Court of Justice is due to rule on 19 November on Malta's Bill 55, which concerns players outside Malta.