Appeal judge rules Maltaco had no exclusive rights beyond Lotto, Super 5 and Grand Lottery, confirming MGA’s power to license other gaming operators
The Court of Appeal has rejected an attempt by Maltco Lotteries Limited to extend its monopoly beyond the National Lottery, ruling that the company’s exclusive rights only covered the Lotto, Super 5 and Grand Lottery.
The decision closes a long-running legal battle between the lottery operator, the Maltese government, and the Malta Gaming Authority (MGA), over the scope of Maltco’s 2012 licence and concession.
The appeal was decided on Tuesday by Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti, Justice Robert G. Mangion and Justice Grazio Mercieca, who confirmed an earlier judgment that had dismissed Maltco’s case against the government and the MGA.
The dispute centred on whether the authorities breached Maltco’s rights when they authorised other operators, such as Gaming Operations Limited (IZIBET), to offer “Additional Games,” including sports betting and roulette-style games.
Maltco had argued that the 2012 concession it was granted by the Ministry for Finance, Economy and Industry gave it exclusivity not just over the National Lottery Games, but also over any additional games that could be introduced until new legislation specifically allowed others to operate in that space.
The company maintained the government and the MGA had acted in breach of contract and in bad faith when they issued licences to third-party operators for games that, according to Maltco, fell within its exclusive remit.
However, the government and the MGA insisted that Maltco’s exclusive rights were limited to the National Lottery Games defined in its licence, namely Grand Lottery, Super 5 and Lotto.
They argued that the market for additional games had always been regulated separately under the Gaming Devices Regulations, which predated Maltco’s concession and allowed the authority to issue licences to multiple operators.
The court examined the 2012 Concession Agreement, the National Lottery Licence, and the relevant legislation, including Cap. 438 of the Laws of Malta.
It found that while the concession referred to the possible introduction of future legislation for additional games, the licence did not grant Maltco any right or expectation of exclusivity beyond the three National Lottery products.
The judges noted Maltco’s licence merely required it to comply with any new licensing regime the government or MGA might establish in the future, confirming that the company was never promised an exclusive market beyond the National Lottery.
The court also observed that other gaming operators were already licensed and active in offering additional games before Maltco’s concession came into force, meaning the company could not claim a monopoly over these activities.
Furthermore, Maltco had not paid any consideration or licence fee to secure exclusivity over such games, which undermined its argument that its concession implied a broader monopoly.
By dismissing Maltco’s appeal, the court confirmed that the MGA acted within its legal mandate when it licensed third-party operators to offer additional gaming services.
Lawyer Rachael Aquilina appeared on behalf of the Economy Ministry and Finance Ministry.