GGL License vs. Malta Gaming Authority: Differences for German Players

The difference between the GGL license and the Malta Gaming Authority concerns the legal validity in Germany. The GGL grants permits under the Interstate Treaty on Gambling 2021. The MGA issues an EU license, which does not provide a legal basis for operation in Germany. Players at providers on the GGL whitelist are protected by the OASIS self-exclusion system and deposit limits. MGA providers often offer higher bonuses, but less local legal protection.

Legal Status: GGL Permit versus MGA License in Germany

The difference between the GGL license and the Malta Gaming Authority is crucial for players in Germany. Only the permit from the Joint Gambling Authority of the Federal States (GGL) makes an offer legal under the Interstate Treaty on Gambling 2021 (GlüStV 2021). A license from the Malta Gaming Authority (MGA) is not considered a sufficient concession in this country. Providers without a German permit are missing from the official whitelist and carry civil law risks.

Is an MGA license valid in Germany?

From a German legal perspective, the answer is clear: No. Anyone who publicly offers gambling in Germany strictly requires a permit in accordance with Section 4 of the GlüStV 2021. The Malta Gaming Authority (MGA) is a recognized supervisory authority within the European Union. However, its license does not replace the national concession. Contracts with providers that only hold a Maltese license but do not possess a German permit are frequently treated as void by German civil case law.

The Joint Gambling Authority of the Federal States (GGL) maintains an official whitelist. Only licensed providers are listed there. If an operator is missing from this list, they are acting illegally from the perspective of German law. This has direct consequences for player protection. While the GGL enforces strict limits, MGA providers are subject to different, often less restrictive rules. These do not comply with the requirements of the GlüStV 2021. Players should be aware that they have no access to the central OASIS self-exclusion system with unlisted providers. In the event of a dispute, they receive little to no government support.

The Role of the Freedom to Provide Services in the EU Single Market

It is often argued that the freedom to provide services within the EU single market overrides national prohibitions. In theory, this principle allows companies to offer their services throughout the Union if they are authorized in a member state like Malta. However, case law has made it clear that gambling represents an exception due to the high risk of addiction and the need for consumer protection. Germany is therefore permitted to enact deviating, stricter rules, as long as they are proportionate.

Although the Malta Gaming Authority (MGA) operates within the framework of EU law, this does not protect its licensees from national sanctions in other member states. The European Court of Justice has confirmed in the past that member states are allowed to regulate gambling in order to ensure public order and player welfare. Consequently, the argument of the freedom to provide services is legally weak for providers that specifically target the German market without a GGL permit. The Joint Gambling Authority of the Federal States (GGL) uses this legal basis to take action against illegal offers, regardless of their EU origin.

Location and Supervision: Halle (Saale) vs. Valletta

The physical and legal distance between the regulatory authorities is significant. The Joint Gambling Authority of the Federal States (GGL) is based in Halle (Saale) and acts as the central point of contact for German players. From here, compliance with the Interstate Treaty on Gambling 2021 (GlüStV 2021) is monitored. This includes the technical connection to LIMAS and OASIS. In contrast, the Malta Gaming Authority (MGA) resides in Valletta, Malta.

For German players, this means different channels for complaints. In case of issues with a GGL-licensed provider, they can contact the authority in Halle (Saale) directly. It can take quick administrative measures. In contrast, for disputes with MGA providers, players often have to pursue lengthy processes in Valletta. Language barriers and legal complexities make this difficult. They can limit the enforcement of foreign judgments. This structural separation shows why local supervision by the GGL offers the decisive safety advantage for players in Germany.

Player Protection Comparison: OASIS, Limits, and Self-Exclusion Systems

The main difference between the GGL license and the Malta Gaming Authority in the area of player protection lies in technical enforceability. The GGL enforces cross-state limits and exclusions via OASIS and LIMAS. The MGA relies on provider-internal measures and the separation of player funds. For players in Germany, this means that only the GGL license guarantees automated, authority-monitored protection against gambling addiction and financial losses. MGA providers have no access to German exclusion registers.

OASIS Exclusion Database: The Central Protective Mechanism of the GGL

The OASIS exclusion database is the central, cross-state self-exclusion system for gambling addicts in Germany. The Joint Gambling Authority of the Federal States (GGL) manages it. It acts as a kind of digital protective shield. As soon as a player excludes themselves or is excluded by a provider due to conspicuous gaming behavior, this information is entered into the OASIS database. Every licensed provider in Germany is legally required to check the user's identity against this database before any play participation.

In contrast, providers with a license from the Malta Gaming Authority (MGA) have no access to the OASIS exclusion database. A self-exclusion effective in Germany therefore does not apply structurally with Maltese providers, as there is no technical connection. This represents a significant risk. Addicted players can easily switch to non-regulated platforms without the exclusion system preventing it. The MGA does require its own self-exclusion mechanisms. However, these are isolated and restricted to the respective platform and do not offer comprehensive protection.

Hard Limits: 1,000 € Deposit and 1 € Bet

The Interstate Treaty on Gambling 2021 (GlüStV 2021) prescribes strict financial upper limits for all providers under GGL supervision. The best-known instrument is the monthly deposit limit of 1,000 euros. The LUGAS system enforces it across all providers. This limit prevents players from bypassing their spending limits by using multiple accounts with different providers. With MGA-licensed casinos, such a central limit does not exist. Here, providers often set their own deposit limits. However, these are voluntary and not synchronized across authorities.

Another critical element is the 1-euro bet limit per spin on virtual slot machine games. This limit is designed to slow down the rate of money loss and prevent high losses in a short period of time. German license holders must anchor this limit firmly in the system technically. With the MGA, a comparable requirement for the bet amount per round is missing. Instead, the Maltese oversight focuses heavily on the segregation of player funds. Every MGA provider must separate customer deposits on separate accounts from the operational business assets. In the event of insolvency, this prevents creditors from accessing player balances. While this protects capital, it does not address addiction prevention through bet limitation.

Technical Compliance: LIMAS and the 5-Second Rule

Technical monitoring by the GGL takes place via the LIMAS interface (cross-state reporting system for gambling). Game data is transmitted to the authority in real-time via LIMAS. This enables seamless control. A central component of this technical compliance is the 5-second rule. There must be a minimum pause of five seconds between two spins on an online slot. This slows down the pace of play and makes impulsive gaming more difficult.

These technical hurdles are not prescribed for MGA providers. Maltese licenses do require the designation of a Key Function Holder. This person is responsible for maintaining compliance guidelines within the company. The focus here is primarily on operational integrity and anti-money laundering (AML). The Key Function Holder ensures that the operator complies with Maltese regulations. However, they have no authority to enforce German technical standards like the 5-second pause. Without a connection to LIMAS, gaming behavior at MGA providers remains invisible to German authorities. Enforcing player protection measures is impossible in case of doubt.

Game Portfolio and Product Restrictions: Live Casino and Betting

The difference between the GGL license and the Malta Gaming Authority is particularly evident in the scope of the permitted game portfolio. The German GGL license prescribes strict product restrictions through the Interstate Treaty on Gambling 2021 (GlüStV). This includes the ban on live dealer casinos and limits on live betting. The Maltese MGA license allows a wide spectrum of real-time games and event bets. This divergence results from different regulatory philosophies: protection through restriction versus freedom through personal responsibility.

Why Live Dealer Casinos Are Missing at GGL Providers

The absence of live dealer games in the German online casino segment is not a technical gap, but a legal requirement. The GlüStV 2021 classifies live casino offers as unauthorized gambling. They are categorized as highly addictive. Instead, GGL-licensed providers focus on virtual slot games. These are subject to strict technical testing. These RNG-based (Random Number Generator) games must be demonstrably fair. They are subject to a maximum bet of 1.00 € per spin and a monthly deposit limit of 1,000 €.

In contrast, the Malta Gaming Authority (MGA) regulates live dealer games under its B2C licensing structure. Here, the Remote Gaming Regulations apply as the legal framework. This explicitly allows and monitors such offers. The MGA also requires fairness tests, but does not rely on a blanket ban on certain game formats. For players, this means: anyone playing under a German license foregoes the social interaction and the real-time experience of a live table. In return, however, they receive the full protection of the German legal framework, including the connection to the OASIS self-exclusion system.

Sports Betting and Live Betting Comparison

In sports betting, the difference between the GGL license and the Malta Gaming Authority is particularly evident in the area of live betting. German providers are allowed to offer sports betting with fixed odds. However, bets on individual events during the ongoing game (in-play bets) are severely restricted or prohibited. eSports, political, or entertainment betting also fall under the German advertising and offering ban in accordance with Section 5 of the GlüStV 2021.

Maltese providers operate under the Maltese Gaming Act. This allows for a far more flexible betting portfolio. Here, live bets are available on almost all conceivable events. This ranges from the next corner in football to award ceremonies. The so-called "Bet-Builder", which enables customized accumulator bets, can be used on MGA-licensed platforms without the German restrictions. However, this freedom comes with a higher risk. Since these providers do not possess a German permit, contracts with them are often void according to German case law. In the event of a dispute, players have no direct leverage in German courts.

Licensing Structure: B2C versus B2B under MGA and GGL

The regulatory architecture of both authorities differs fundamentally in the licensing of the value chain. The MGA awards two main categories: the B2C license (Business-to-Consumer) for operators aiming directly at end players, and the B2B license (Business-to-Business) for software providers and platform providers. A B2C license authorizes an online casino to offer games. A B2B license entitles manufacturers like Evolution Gaming or Pragmatic Play to supply their software to licensed operators.

This dual system ensures that both the operator and the technical infrastructure are compliant. Critical suppliers must also demonstrate specific requirements such as ISO/IEC 27001 certifications for information security. This guarantees the integrity of the games. In Germany, the structure is less segmented into B2B/B2C in the Maltese sense. It focuses on the permit for the specific gambling operation. Nevertheless, many internationally active corporations use the Maltese corporate structure as a back office. In parallel, they acquire the German GGL concession for market access in Germany. This entanglement shows that the MGA license often provides the technical basis. The GGL license represents the local market approval with strict requirements.

Economic Factors: Taxes, Bonuses, and Payment Methods

Players feel the difference between the GGL license and the Malta Gaming Authority primarily in terms of financial burden. In Germany, a 5.3 percent betting tax is levied. The availability of bonus offers and payment methods also differs. GGL-licensed providers must factor tax levies directly into the odds or game play. MGA casinos often operate without this specific burden. However, this comes with limited legal protection and more complex payment paths.

5.3% Betting Tax and Its Impact on Odds

The German betting tax in the amount of 5.3 percent represents a central economic factor. It directly affects the odds structure at GGL providers. Since this tax is levied on the stake, licensed operators must pass on these costs. This is done either through poorer odds or direct deductions from the customers. In comparison, Malta providers that do not pay German tax can theoretically invest this margin in better odds. This seems attractive in the short term, but ignores long-term tax compliance in Germany.

From a compliance perspective, this differentiation is crucial. The GGL ensures transparent taxation within the German legal framework. With MGA providers, there is often uncertainty about who bears the tax responsibility. For the player, this means legal certainty with GGL providers, as the tax liability is clearly regulated. With foreign providers, potential additional demands or gray areas may exist. The betting tax thus not only affects the pure profit amount but also defines the legal framework of the transaction.

Bonus Offers: Restrictions versus Freedom

Another essential aspect in the difference between the GGL license and the Malta Gaming Authority lies in the design of the bonus offers. German regulation under the Interstate Treaty on Gambling 2021 severely restricts advertising measures and bonus structures. This is intended to prevent gambling addiction. Therefore, GGL providers typically offer highly restricted bonus offers. High incentives are considered addictive.

In contrast, MGA casinos often advertise with aggressive bonus offers. These include high deposit bonuses or weekly reload bonuses. This freedom results from less strict advertising regulation in Malta. However, it carries the risk of non-transparent wagering requirements. An injunction lawsuit can become relevant here if providers specifically target German players with such offers despite lacking a German permit. This violates Section 5 of the GlüStV 2021. Players should be aware that high bonuses at MGA providers are often linked to complex withdrawal conditions. These are difficult to enforce in the event of a dispute.

Payment Transactions: Crypto, BaFin, and GwG Compliance

Payment transactions reveal profound structural differences. GGL-licensed providers are subject to strict requirements of the Payment Services Supervision Act (ZAG) and BaFin supervision. This generally excludes the integration of cryptocurrencies. BaFin (Federal Financial Supervisory Authority) plays a central role here. It ensures that only verified and regulated payment service providers are active in the German gambling market. This leads to the dominance of established methods like PayPal, Trustly, or credit cards. The separation of player funds is legally prescribed. The strict supervision of BaFin prevents players from transferring funds to accounts that are not clearly assigned to the licensed operator.

MGA providers, on the other hand, are subject to the Maltese Anti-Money Laundering Act (GwG) and the supervision of the Financial Intelligence Analysis Unit (FIAU). Although strict anti-money laundering guidelines apply here as well, the range of payment methods is often broader. It frequently includes cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin or Ethereum. Although the FIAU monitors compliance, German players lack a direct connection to national protective mechanisms. BaFin can also initiate payment blockages against unlicensed providers. This increasingly complicates the use of MGA casinos with cryptocurrencies or other methods. The FIAU thus acts as the Maltese counterpart to the German supervisory authority, but without direct enforcement power in Germany. This regulatory gap means that players at MGA providers do have more payment freedom. However, they must forego the protective mechanism of the German financial supervisory authority.

About this Article - Editorial & Responsibility

Author: Sarah Weber - Casino Tester & Bonus Analyst

Reviewed by: Dr. Markus Hoffmann - Senior iGaming Compliance Analyst

Last Update: 2026-07-23.

This article on the “difference between the GGL license and the Malta Gaming Authority” was written by Sarah Weber and reviewed by Dr. Markus Hoffmann. Both regularly update the content regarding regulatory changes, license availability, and bonus terms. All statements regarding licenses, authorities, and legal frameworks refer to publicly accessible sources (GGL (Joint Gambling Authority of the Federal States), Interstate Treaty on Gambling 2021 (GlüStV 2021)).

About the Author

8+ years of casino reviews, 200+ personally tested platforms in the EU and internationally. Former member of the eCOGRA Player Advocacy Program (2018-2022). Specialization: wagering requirements, payout workflows, customer support assessment.

About the Reviewer

12+ years in the iGaming industry, including 5 years as a compliance consultant for licensed operators under the Interstate Treaty on Gambling 2021. PhD in Business Mathematics. Main research areas: bonus mathematics, wager analysis, player protection systems (OASIS).

Responsible Gambling

Gambling can be addictive. If you feel like you are losing control of your gaming behavior, please contact BzgA Gambling Addiction Help, Check-dein-Spiel.de, or use the central exclusion system (OASIS (central player exclusion system)). Set personal deposit and loss limits before playing with real money. Pauses and cooldown features from providers are not a sign of weakness - they are a tool for sustainable fun in gaming.

Legal Notice

The information in this article is for editorial and comparison purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. The legal assessment of online gambling without a German license is a gray area and is subject to ongoing adjustments by the GGL (Joint Gambling Authority of the Federal States). Players themselves are responsible for complying with local regulations.