Malta’s First Hall Civil Court ruled on January 15, 2026, that Austria’s decision to impose an €83,000 fine on Betway for player losses violates Malta’s and the EU’s gaming...
MGA updates 2026 guide on regulations and player protection
In 2026, the Malta Gaming Authority (MGA) remains one of the most influential regulators in the global gaming sector. The regulator is widely known for its rigorous compliance expectations and industry-leading standards. In 2026, the gaming regulator is sharpening its regulatory framework even more to have a clearer, firmer, and more enforcement-driven regulatory posture.
As global scrutiny of online gambling continues to intensify, Malta’s framework is moving from being defined by licensing volume alone. Today, the regulations are defined by financial discipline, reputational safeguards, and measurable enforcement. With the growing online casino market in Malta, the measures put forth by the regulator are not just for show. They are working to make the market more aligned with industry standards.
This article will showcase the updated regulatory guide, which reflects the MGA’s ongoing evolution. It expands the move from being a licensing gatekeeper to becoming a rigorous regulator.
Regulatory clarity and enforcement reality
Over the last few years, MGA’s mandate has been expanding at a significant rate. Under Malta’s Gaming Act (Cap. 583) and amended directives, the regulator now undertakes frequent compliance audits, thematic reviews, and enforcement actions as part of its supervisory cycle.
In the first half of 2025, the regulator conducted seven full-scope compliance audits and 87 thematic reviews in three different areas. These were sports betting integrity, compliance, and player protection. During the same period, the Authority also issued:
- 15 warnings
- 23 administrative penalties totaling €139,360
- One license cancellation
- 23 cease and desist letters
This shift emphasized the reality that initial authorization is only the first step. For license retention, you need ongoing compliance. Operators are now subject to continuous monitoring with more proactive audits and checks on financial health, responsible gaming measures, and anti-money laundering controls.
One distinct aspect of enforcement involves the MGA’s public registry of unauthorized domains that falsely claim approval. In their review of 75 URLs, 34 of them were found to contain fraudulent references to the regulator or its licensees. The MGA added these URLs to their publicly available list on their website. This means that any person who comes across any “MGA licensed” platforms should first check the website to know whether it is actually legitimate or not.
Player protection tools and dispute processes
Player welfare remains a core pillar of the MGA’s regulatory philosophy. Under Directive 2 of 2018 (Player Protection Directive), and its updates, operators with an MGA license must implement a number of protective measures. These include
- Robust self-exclusion systems with flexible timeframes and seamless.
- implementation processes. These range from 24 hours to 356 days.
- Mandatory deposit, loss, and session limits, as well as real-time reality checks during play sessions.
- Clear behavioral monitoring tools.
- Proper and regularly updated policies and structures to promote responsible gambling.
The MGA also mandates that operators maintain sufficient resources for the daily management of disputes and complaints. Players must be able to access structured complaint channels. However, if internal resolutions fail, players should be given the opportunity to seek help from registered alternative dispute resolution (ADR) entities that have binding decisions.
Additional enhancements to the Player Protection Directive further clarify responsible gambling obligations. For example, players should never be encouraged to engage in prolonged or continuous gameplay, wager winnings, chase losses, spend more than they can afford, or gamble before reaching the age of 18. All these directives ensure that players are operating above the line of responsibility, and that problem gambling is out of their way.
Taxes and financial compliance
From a fiscal standpoint, 2026 reflects continuity mixed with precision. The financial dimension of MGA regulation is less a matter of ambiguity and more a quantifiable business reality. You see, Malta’s gaming tax framework combines operator revenue with variable regulatory contributions as well as broader national tax policy. All of these shape an operator’s economic footprint on the island.
Under the current Maltese gaming tax legislation, operators licensed by the MGA are subjected to a 5% on GGR generated from players who are physically in Malta. This rate applies across B2c game types and is assessed monthly on revenue earned from maltene customers.
Even though most operators whose main focus is the international market generate revenue from non-Maltese players, the levy still feeds directly into Malta’s national finances. Actually, the government projections for 2026 are €67. This will be a modest increase from the expected €65 million in 2025.
Well, apart from the gaming tax, MCA licensees hold different variable compliance contributions tied to their GGR. These contributions are core to MGA’s funding and vary depending on license category or revenue band. The type 1, 2, 3, and 4 operators all have different contributions. However, while the exact figures are determined on a case-by-case basis, industry sources point to mid-sized operators paying €400,000 or more annually, while larger firms make contributions amounting to €600,000 or more.
Looking at operator verification
Operators holding an MGA license are required to satisfy stringent KYC/AML (anti-money laundering) obligations. This includes close cooperation with Maltese authorities to ensure robust transaction monitoring. Nowadays, cooperation procedures are more formalized, with AML examinations happening regularly under co-supervision.
To maintain market access and reputational safety, operators are expected to:
- Ensure transparent communication with regulators
- Avoid association with unregulated or blacklisted brands by conducting due diligence
- Adopt high standards of data governance and cybersecurity resilience
By meeting these criteria, the operators remove the risk of impairment from competing in regulated markets where reputation and reliability are essential.
The First Hall of the Civil Court in Valletta, Malta, ruled on July 9 that Entain’s attempt to reinstate a ban on Sportingwin was legally flawed.Entain requested the...
