Bet-at-Home Faces Legal Storm: Tax Risks, Player Lawsuits & Cracks in Malta’s Shield

The recent court rulings and corporate restructuring surrounding bet-at-home expose a strategic effort to evade player compensation, minimize tax liabilities and limit legal accountability. The dismissal of a €25+ million lawsuit in Malta has demonstrated how the country’s legal framework shields online gambling operators from foreign lawsuits. However, a ruling by the Austrian Supreme Court, coupled with ongoing scrutiny from the EU Commission, suggests that bet-at-home’s legal protections may not hold up outside Malta.

At the same time, bet-at-home’s new licensed entity in Germany raises questions about taxation and corporate responsibility. Could affected players pursue lawsuits against bet-at-home in Germany or Austria? And how much of the company’s revenue is at risk due to taxation disputes and ongoing litigation?

This article dissects bet-at-home’s legal battles, financial vulnerabilities and the growing pressure from European regulators.

Bet-at-Home Escaped a €25 Million Lawsuit with Article 56A

In a landmark decision that underscored Malta’s controversial legal shield for gambling operators, the Civil Court of Malta dismissed a lawsuit exceeding €25 million against bet-at-home.com Entertainment Limited (in liquidation). The ruling, issued on April 19, 2024, was delivered by Judge Ian Spiteri Bailey LL.M. LL.D. in the Commercial Section of the Civil Court under case number 107/2021 ISB.

The Players Who Took on Bet-at-Home

The plaintiffs in this case were Laura Eisendle née Niederbacher and Roman Dreher, two players who had accumulated substantial gambling losses on bet-at-home’s platforms and sought legal restitution. Eisendle, in particular, had secured a favorable ruling in an Austrian court, which ordered bet-at-home to reimburse her €580,293.01. Her claim was backed by a certificate issued under Article 53 of EU Regulation 1215/2012, which governs the recognition and enforcement of judgments across EU member states. Dreher had also pursued legal action based on similar grounds.

Their argument was that bet-at-home.com Entertainment Limited (in liquidation) was liable for their gambling losses and that, under EU law, the Austrian ruling should be automatically enforceable in Malta. However, the defense team for bet-at-home countered that such claims were inadmissible due to Malta’s new gambling law, Article 56A of the Maltese Gaming Act, enacted in June 2023 as part of Bill No. 55.

How Article 56A Blocked the Lawsuit

The court dismissed the lawsuit on the grounds that Article 56A of the Maltese Gaming Act explicitly bars lawsuits against Malta-licensed gambling companies for gambling-related claims. This controversial provision states:

• Foreign players cannot sue Maltese-licensed gaming operators for gambling losses.
• Foreign court judgments against Malta-based gambling firms will not be recognized or enforced in Malta.

This ruling effectively grants blanket immunity to Malta-based gambling operators, including bet-at-home.com Entertainment Limited, from lawsuits filed by foreign players, regardless of prior court rulings in other EU countries.

Loophole in EU Law or an Open Violation?

The dismissal of the case has sparked significant debate within the legal community and at the European Commission. The plaintiffs, along with legal experts, argue that Article 56A is in direct conflict with EU Regulation 1215/2012, which mandates that judgments from EU member states must be recognized and enforced across all member jurisdictions.

By refusing to recognize the Austrian ruling, Malta has essentially positioned itself outside the European legal framework.

In response to growing concerns, the European Commission has launched an inquiry into the legality of Article 56A. If the law is found to be in breach of EU treaties and regulations, Malta could be forced to amend or repeal this legal shield—potentially exposing bet-at-home.com Entertainment Limited and other gambling operators to millions in legal claims from players across Europe.

Austrian Supreme Court Ruling: Cracking the Legal Armor of Bet-at-Home

The Austrian Supreme Court delivered a significant blow to bet-at-home.com Internet Ltd. (Malta) by ruling that the company is liable for the debts of bet-at-home.com Entertainment Ltd. (Malta, in liquidation). The case, which revolves around a €2.8 million player claim, challenges Malta’s controversial legal protection under Article 56A of the Maltese Gaming Act and sets a critical precedent for future lawsuits against the company.

A Legal Breakthrough for Players Seeking Compensation

This ruling is legally groundbreaking because it undermines bet-at-home’s corporate restructuring strategy, which has long relied on liquidating subsidiaries to evade financial liabilities. The Austrian Supreme Court’s decision holds immense significance for three key reasons:

1. Liability Extends Beyond the Liquidated Maltese Entity The ruling explicitly states that bet-at-home.com Internet Ltd. is responsible for the debts of bet-at-home.com Entertainment Ltd., even though the latter has been dissolved. This effectively prevents bet-at-home from using liquidation as a loophole to erase financial obligations, a common tactic among online gambling operators facing legal claims.
2. Austrian Jurisdiction Over Bet-at-Home Creates a Legal Pathway for Players By asserting that bet-at-home.com Internet Ltd. can be held accountable under Austrian law, the Supreme Court has opened the door for other affected players to file lawsuits in Austria—a jurisdiction that does not recognize the controversial protections afforded to gambling operators under Malta’s Laws. This means that any player who has suffered financial losses on bet-at-home’s platforms may now have a legitimate legal basis to pursue compensation in Austria, rather than being blocked in Malta.
3. A Direct Challenge to Malta’s Legal Shield Under Article 56A The Austrian Supreme Court’s ruling essentially disregards the protections offered by Malta’s gambling law, which prohibits foreign claims against Malta-based gambling operators. This is a direct challenge to Malta’s legal framework, suggesting that other European courts may follow Austria’s lead and refuse to recognize Malta’s efforts to shield gambling companies from liability.

Future Lawsuits: Is Austria the New Battleground?

This ruling is not just an isolated case—it sets a precedent that could have far-reaching consequences. With bet-at-home.com Internet Ltd. now established as a legally responsible entity in Austria, other players who have lost money gambling on bet-at-home’s platforms may be able to file claims directly in Austria, bypassing the legal blockade in Malta.

Furthermore, this decision could influence courts in Germany and other EU member states, potentially leading to a wave of lawsuits against bet-at-home in jurisdictions where players can actually seek legal recourse.

At the same time, this case raises serious questions about the tax and legal responsibilities of bet-at-home’s corporate structure, particularly since the parent company bet-at-home.com Holding Ltd. is based in Austria. If Austrian courts continue to assert jurisdiction, there may be new tax implications for the company, as it could be deemed to have a substantial presence in Austria, rather than solely operating out of Malta.

Will the EU Intervene?

The European Commission is already investigating whether Malta’s Article 56A is in violation of EU law and this ruling adds further pressure for regulatory intervention. If Austria’s legal stance gains traction across Europe, Malta’s status as a “safe haven” for gambling operators could be in jeopardy—potentially exposing companies like bet-at-home to millions in pending legal claims.

For now, one thing is clear: bet-at-home is no longer legally untouchable and Austria may become the new legal battleground for players seeking justice.

Bet-at-Home’s Maze: A Structure Designed to Evade Liability?

While bet-at-home has been a dominant player in the German gambling market, its corporate structure is deliberately opaque, making it exceptionally difficult to pinpoint legal responsibility for its operations. This complex web of entities spans multiple jurisdictions, raising serious concerns about regulatory oversight, tax liabilities and legal accountability.

A Multi-Layered Ownership Chain: Who is Really in Charge?

The bet-at-home corporate network consists of multiple layers, with ownership and decision-making power fragmented across different countries. The structure is as follows:

1. BET-AT-HOME.COM HOLDING LIMITED (Malta) – The Maltese Core

• This entity serves as the main holding company for the bet-at-home group.
• It is controlled by BET-AT-HOME.COM ENTERTAINMENT GMBH (Austria) and BET-AT-HOME.COM AG (Germany).

2. BET-AT-HOME.COM ENTERTAINMENT GMBH (Austria) – The Austrian Link

• Registered in Linz, Austria, this entity holds a significant stake in the Maltese holding company.
• According to official filings, it owns 2,450 shares at €1.00 each in BET-AT-HOME.COM HOLDING LIMITED, further entrenching Austrian involvement in the business.

3. BET-AT-HOME.COM AG (Germany) – The Publicly Listed Entity

• Registered in Düsseldorf, Germany, this entity is publicly traded on the Frankfurt Stock Exchange.
• It holds 50 shares in BET-AT-HOME.COM HOLDING LIMITED, creating a direct legal connection to Germany.
• Majority ownership is listed below and shows the real controlling interests behind the company and the real players.

The Ultimate Owners: Following the Money to France

Despite its operations being heavily linked to Germany and Austria, the ultimate controlling power behind bet-at-home lies in France through a network of parent companies:

1. Betclic Everest Group SAS (Paris, France) Holds a controlling interest in bet-at-home.com AG since September 5, 2009.
2. FL Entertainment N.V. (Netherlands) – 95% Ownership of Betclic Everest Group This Dutch entity holds a 95% stake in Betclic Everest Group, meaning that the entire bet-at-home structure is ultimately under its control.
3. Banijay Group & Lov Group (France) – The True Power Players FL Entertainment N.V. is controlled by Banijay Group, which itself is controlled by Lov Group. Lov Group is the private holding company of French billionaire Stéphane Courbit, who holds 45% of the capital and 71% of the voting rights in Banijay Group. Courbit’s personal fortune is estimated at €2.2 billion, making him the ultimate financial powerhouse behind bet-at-home and its subsidiaries.

Why This Structure Raises Legal and Tax Questions

• Where is bet-at-home truly liable? With Maltese, Austrian, German and French entities involved, plaintiffs seeking to recover gambling losses may have multiple avenues for legal action, particularly in Austria and Germany, where parent entities have direct ownership stakes.
• Could Austria and Germany assert tax jurisdiction? Since Marco Falchetto, the Director of BET-AT-HOME.COM HOLDING LIMITED, operates from Austria, this raises the possibility that bet-at-home’s revenue could be subject to Austrian taxation—especially if Austrian authorities determine that decision-making occurs there. Similarly, with bet-at-home.com AG being publicly listed in Germany, there is a case to be made that German tax authorities could claim taxation rights over profits generated from German players.
• Is the French billionaire Stéphane Courbit legally exposed? Given that FL Entertainment N.V. (Netherlands) and Banijay Group (France) ultimately control bet-at-home, plaintiffs may be able to pursue legal claims higher up the corporate chain, targeting Courbit’s vast media empire.

Marco Falchetto: The Man for Bet-at-Home’s Operations

One of the most critical figures in this entire structure is Marco Falchetto, who serves as:

• Director of BET-AT-HOME.COM HOLDING LIMITED (Malta)
• CEO of BET-AT-HOME.COM AG (Germany)

This means that decision-making power is concentrated in Austria, rather than Malta. This could have major legal consequences, as Austrian courts may have jurisdiction over lawsuits against bet-at-home, even if the company attempts to shield itself behind Malta’s Article 56A protections.

Furthermore, Roland Aigner, the Director of BET-AT-HOME.COM INTERNET LIMITED (Malta), has publicly stated that he reports directly to Falchetto. This establishes a clear link between Austrian decision-makers and the Maltese subsidiaries, further strengthening the case for legal action in Austria.

A Fragile Legal Shield? EU and German Authorities May Step In

With increasing scrutiny from the EU Commission regarding Malta’s Article 56A and with Austrian courts already ruling against bet-at-home in a €2.8 million case, this entire corporate structure may soon face legal challenges in multiple jurisdictions.

Moreover, German authorities may take a closer look at bet-at-home’s German operations, particularly now that a new company has taken over its German sports betting license following regulatory issues in 2022.

The key question remains:

How long can bet-at-home hide behind its complex setup before regulatory and legal authorities in Austria, Germany and the EU hold it accountable?

Marco Falchetto: The Power Behind Bet-at-Home

Bet-at-home’s legal and tax liabilities are becoming a growing concern and at the center of this corporate web stands one key figure: Marco Falchetto.

While much attention has been focused on Malta as a legal shield for the company’s gaming operations, Falchetto’s executive role in Austria raises critical questions about jurisdiction, tax obligations and legal accountability for Bet-at-Home.

Who is Marco Falchetto? The Man Controlling Bet-at-Home

Marco Falchetto is no ordinary executive—he holds dual leadership roles in the bet-at-home group, directly overseeing both the German and Maltese entities.

Why Does This Matter? Austria’s Growing Legal and Tax Exposure

While bet-at-home’s business operates through multiple jurisdictions, Falchetto’s position as the ultimate decision-maker in Austria opens the door to lawsuits and tax liabilities that the company may not have anticipated.

1. Corporate Control in Austria: Is Bet-at-Home Actually an Austrian Company?

• Where key decisions are made determines legal responsibility. Despite Malta being the registered location of bet-at-home.com Holding Ltd., the company’s actual management and strategic decision-making seem to occur in Austria, where Falchetto is based. This means that Austrian courts could claim jurisdiction over legal cases against bet-at-home, even if the company tries to shield itself behind Malta’s Article 56A legal protections.
• Austria could have tax jurisdiction over bet-at-home. Under international corporate tax law, a company is considered taxable in the country where its key business decisions are made. If Austrian authorities determine that bet-at-home’s core management team is operating out of Austria, the company could be liable for corporate taxes in Austria, rather than in Malta’s low-tax environment.

2. Potential Legal Exposure in Austria: A Major Lawsuit Precedent Has Been Set

• The Austrian Supreme Court has already ruled against bet-at-home in a €2.8 million case. The ruling found that bet-at-home.com Internet Ltd. (Malta) is legally responsible for the debts of bet-at-home.com Entertainment Ltd. (Malta, in liquidation). This means that even though the Maltese entity is being liquidated, claimants can still pursue other parts of the bet-at-home group for compensation.
• This precedent opens the door for more lawsuits in Austria. If the Supreme Court acknowledged a legal connection between Austria and the Maltese subsidiaries, other affected players may now have a stronger case to sue bet-at-home in Austria. Falchetto’s role as CEO in Austria strengthens the argument that bet-at-home’s operations are effectively controlled from Austria, potentially giving Austrian courts further jurisdiction over player lawsuits.
• Could bet-at-home face lawsuits from German players in Austria? Since bet-at-home’s German-facing websites were operated by the Maltese subsidiaries, but managed from Austria, German players who lost money could argue that Austria has jurisdiction over their claims. This is particularly significant given that Germany has imposed strict gambling regulations and some players may look for alternative legal avenues outside of Malta.

3. Tax Risks: Could Austria and Germany Demand More from Bet-at-Home?

• Austrian tax authorities may not look kindly on a company managing operations from Austria while avoiding Austrian taxes. If authorities determine that key management functions—such as financial planning, strategy and operational decisions—are made in Austria, then bet-at-home.com Holding Ltd. could be subject to Austrian corporate taxation.
• Germany could also examine its tax position on bet-at-home. Since bet-at-home.com AG is a publicly listed German company, German tax authorities may start investigating whether certain revenues should be subject to German taxation, rather than being funneled through Malta or Austria. The German-licensed entity, which took over bet-at-home’s sports betting business in 2022, may also face scrutiny if its profits continue to be structured in a way that minimizes German tax obligations.

4. Could Marco Falchetto Be Personally Liable?

• As CEO of bet-at-home.com AG and Director of bet-at-home.com Holding Ltd., Falchetto is deeply involved in financial and strategic decisions across multiple jurisdictions.
• If Austrian courts establish that corporate decisions were made under his leadership, he could face personal legal exposure in tax and liability matters.
• The argument that bet-at-home is an “Austrian-controlled company” is only growing stronger and legal experts may soon explore whether lawsuits against Falchetto himself could be justified.

Bet-at-Home’s Statements Reveal Legal and Financial Risks

While bet-at-home has long operated under the assumption that its corporate structure shields it from liability, the company’s own 2023 Financial Statement tells a different story—one of rising legal risks, financial uncertainty and growing regulatory scrutiny.

As the company scrambles to navigate ongoing litigation, insolvency proceedings and European regulatory challenges, bet-at-home’s internal financial disclosures confirm what many have suspected: the company is bracing for legal battles and potential multimillion-euro payouts.

1. Player Lawsuits and the Risk of Reimbursement Claims

• The financial statement acknowledges ongoing and potential lawsuits from players who claim reimbursement for gambling losses—a direct contradiction to bet-at-home’s public claims that Malta’s Bill No. 55 protects them from liability.
• The Austrian Supreme Court’s ruling against bet-at-home in a €2.8 million lawsuit has already set a precedent—one that other claimants may now seek to follow, bypassing Malta’s Article 56A protections.
• If the EU Commission invalidates Bill No. 55, lawsuits previously blocked in Malta could be reactivated across European jurisdictions, putting millions in potential liability back on the table.

2. The Uncertainty of Bet-at-Home.com Entertainment Ltd.’s Liquidation

• Bet-at-home’s former Maltese operating company, bet-at-home.com Entertainment Ltd., entered liquidation after multiple lawsuits from players seeking lost funds.
• However, the liquidation process is not expected to conclude until 2025 and uncertainties remain about how much, if anything, creditors—including players—will actually recover.
• A key issue is whether legal claims from players will succeed—if they do, a significant portion of any remaining assets may be allocated to reimburse these claims before the company is fully dissolved.

3. Bet-at-Home AG’s €7.6 Million Claim: Will the Holding Company Recover Its Funds?

• The 2023 Financial Statement reveals that bet-at-home AG (Germany) has a receivable of €7.6 million from bet-at-home.com Entertainment Ltd. (Malta, in liquidation).
• However, uncertainty surrounds whether this amount will ever be recovered, as the company is already burdened with pending lawsuits, legal fees and administrative costs associated with the liquidation process.
• Court fees, procedural expenses and consultant costs are expected to reduce the final amount available for payout to creditors and players—potentially leaving bet-at-home AG with little to no reimbursement from its Maltese subsidiary’s dissolution.

?

4. EU Commission Investigation: A Looming Threat to Malta’s Legal Protections

• Bet-at-home’s financial statements reveal that the company is closely monitoring the European Commission’s ongoing investigation into Bill No. 55.
• If EU authorities determine that Malta’s Bill No. 55 violates European law, bet-at-home could lose one of its primary legal defenses against foreign lawsuits.
• This could have massive repercussions, as players who previously lost legal battles due to Malta’s immunity law could now resubmit claims in their home jurisdictions.

5. The Bigger Picture: Growing Regulatory and Legal Exposure Across Europe

• Beyond Malta, Austria and Germany, bet-at-home is also facing legal challenges in Switzerland, where a recent Supreme Court ruling confirmed that bet-at-home.com Internet Ltd. (Malta) was liable for unpaid VAT on its sports betting operations.
• The Swiss case resulted in a €4.8 million tax liability, further demonstrating that courts outside Malta are increasingly willing to hold bet-at-home accountable for its financial obligations.
• The company’s legal risk is no longer confined to one country and its corporate structure may no longer provide the legal immunity it once relied upon.

The Bottom Line: Illusion of Immunity Is Crumbling

For years, bet-at-home has relied on a carefully engineered corporate structure, legal loopholes and Malta’s protective laws to shield itself from financial liability, lawsuits and tax scrutiny. However, recent legal rulings, regulatory inquiries and corporate disclosures suggest that this house of cards is beginning to collapse.

Legal Accountability Is Catching Up

The Austrian Supreme Court’s ruling against bet-at-home.com Internet Ltd. has set a dangerous precedent for the company, proving that courts outside of Malta are willing to ignore Article 56A and hold the company accountable. As more players recognize this legal opening, bet-at-home may face an onslaught of lawsuits in Austria, Germany and beyond.

Furthermore, with EU authorities actively investigating Malta’s Bill No. 55, it is becoming increasingly likely that the legal shield protecting gambling operators in Malta will be dismantled. If this happens, millions of euros in previously blocked player lawsuits could suddenly become enforceable—leading to massive financial liabilities for bet-at-home and other operators using Malta as a legal safe haven.

Tax Authorities May Soon Come Knocking

While bet-at-home has long minimized its tax obligations by structuring its operations through Malta, the company’s real decision-making power appears to reside in Austria, where CEO Marco Falchetto operates. Under international corporate tax law, companies are taxable in the jurisdiction where key management decisions occur—meaning Austrian tax authorities could legitimately demand unpaid corporate taxes from bet-at-home.

Germany may also re-examine the tax obligations of bet-at-home AG, especially given its public listing on the Frankfurt Stock Exchange and direct ties to the Maltese entities. Meanwhile, in Switzerland, bet-at-home has already been ordered to pay millions in back taxes on its sports betting operations, proving that courts and regulators are no longer turning a blind eye to the company’s financial maneuvers.

The End of an Era?

For years, bet-at-home thrived under the illusion of corporate immunity, using Malta’s gambling laws and complex offshore structures to sidestep accountability. However, that era appears to be coming to an end.

·???????? Players now have clear legal pathways to sue the company outside of Malta.

·???????? The EU Commission is investigating Malta’s gambling laws, putting bet-at-home’s legal shield at risk.

·???????? Tax authorities in Austria, Germany and Switzerland may soon hold bet-at-home financially accountable for its revenues.

?

The question is no longer if bet-at-home will be held accountable—but rather, how much it will cost the company, its shareholders and its executives when that accountability finally arrives.

?

If you’re navigating the complexities of gaming and finance, TRIDER can provide the clarity you need. With proven investigative expertise, we specialize in delivering actionable insights through tailored company analysis, profiling and compliance reviews.

?