Will New Zealand be the next to encounter gambling lawsuit upheaval?

(AsiaGameHub) –   There was widespread speculation about the potential scope of fallout from last week’s Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruling targeting Malta and Lottoland. 

The ramifications are starting to surface, as even across global regulatory regions, the ruling has paved the way for legal preparations to begin. A slew of gambling operators are facing coordinated legal challenges in New Zealand.

Legal claims have been submitted against bet365, SkyCity Entertainment and Super Group, with challenges focused on retrospective gambling activities set to be heard at the Auckland High Court. 

Parallel to the cases overwhelming Malta’s court system, operators that provided offshore or unlicensed online gambling services will face scrutiny if they are found to have actively targeted New Zealand-based customers prior to regulatory overhauls. 

That said, while the CJEU ruling may have encouraged other global courts to pursue legal action, New Zealand has no established legal precedent for whether its judicial system can enforce penalties or rules on online gambling activities before a legislative resolution is finalized. 

Last week, gambling operators grew more anxious following a CJEU ruling that declared contracts between players located in Germany and operators unlicensed in Germany as effectively void. 

This marked a blow to Malta’s regulatory framework, as the ruling confirmed that players could seek repayment of their losses from operators lacking proper local licensing. It also could establish a binding precedent for both operators and players across the European Union. 

The New Zealand cases will bypass the red tape associated with Europe and its member states, as the operators’ fates will be determined through proceedings at the country’s Supreme Court. 

Bet365 intends to argue that the cases should be heard in the jurisdiction where it held its operating license, rather than the location where the players reside, as this was the legal framework it adhered to during its operations. 

Regulatory bodies across numerous jurisdictions will be closely watching the progression of New Zealand’s cases, as they serve as a non-EU testing ground for player repayment claims outside of EU legal frameworks. 

If claimants win their legal fight against gambling operators in New Zealand, the floodgates could fully open for player repayment cases worldwide.

The fallout could have a major impact on how New Zealand finalizes the remaining phases of its online casino regulatory framework, as license applications are set to launch in July 2026.

Per an agreement made by Parliament, New Zealand’s upcoming online casino regulatory system will be capped at 15 total licenses, while TAB NZ’s long-term partnership with Entain will create a monopoly on online sports betting. Legal reviews of past gambling activities could ultimately determine which operators are allowed to participate in New Zealand’s online casino framework.

That said, there is still a chance that similar cases could spread more widely across Europe, especially in Finland, which has had a monopolized gambling market in the past. 

Speaking on LinkedIn, iGaming legal expert Antti Koivula warned that “Within the Finnish legal landscape, this ruling means that if an MGA-licensed operator provided gambling services in Finland in violation of the Lotteries Act, for example, customers who lost money to those operators could pursue repayment through Finnish courts.”

He forecast that Bill 55 would likely be struck down by the CJEU, a ruling that would further escalate the wave of legal activity surrounding gambling cases.

He added: “That said, under a widely accepted interpretation of Finnish law, an online gambling service is considered to be offered within Finland if the operator has illegally targeted Finnish consumers with gambling marketing and actively allowed participation in the service from within the country. Both actions are strictly prohibited.

Labeling Finland as a country with extensive bureaucratic red tape, he emphasized that proving an operator illegally targeted Finnish marketing and enabled domestic participation would likely require nothing less than a prohibition order from the National Police Board. 

This significantly limits how applicable the Lottoland ruling is to Finland, as securing such a prohibition order demands significant time and effort, and only three foreign operators have successfully completed the process thus far.”

It is difficult to predict the future of player repayment cases, but while the CJEU’s ruling against Lottoland opened the door for such claims, the upcoming New Zealand cases may be especially critical for global legal trends surrounding gambling, a development that could shape industry discussions for years to come.