One platform, certified twice, for no additional safety
An operator that wants to take a fixed-odds bet in both Pennsylvania and Ohio submits substantially the same wagering platform for testing twice, to two labs, against two near-identical technical standards, and pays for both. Nothing about the second certification makes the platform safer. That duplication is the cleanest argument for the sports betting regulation lessons buried in Malta’s 2018 Gaming Act: the consolidated licensing model contains specific, exportable mechanisms, but the United States cannot adopt the framework itself, because the thing that makes Malta’s version work is a single sovereign regulator and the US does not have one.
The comparison is worth revisiting now because states are no longer writing first-generation sports betting law. They are amending it: renewing licences, revising technical rules, rewriting data mandates and arguing about responsible gambling minimums. Amendments are where narrow borrowing is actually possible.
What Malta’s 2018 Gaming Act actually changed
The 2018 Gaming Act replaced Malta’s fragmented, class-based licensing regime with a single technology-neutral law administered by the Malta Gaming Authority, collapsing the old multiple licence classes into two categories: a B2C Gaming Service licence for operators that face players, and a B2B Critical Gaming Supply licence for providers of platforms, software and critical components.
Three details matter more than the headline simplification.
First, the B2C licence is subdivided by game type rather than by delivery channel. Fixed-odds betting sits in its own type alongside random-outcome casino games, peer-to-peer products and skill games, so a sportsbook’s obligations are defined by what it offers, not by whether it offers it online or over the counter. Second, supervision moved to a risk-based, objective-driven model: the MGA grades licensees by risk and allocates scrutiny accordingly, rather than applying one checklist to everyone. Third, licence terms were extended to ten years, which shifted the regulator’s workload from repetitive renewals towards ongoing supervision.
The MGA licensed about 302 companies, holding 311 gaming licences, as of 2025, down from 315 licensed companies in 2024, and the sector accounts for around 6.3 per cent of Maltese GDP. For 2026 the authority has said its supervisory priorities include crypto-asset controls, player protection and sports betting integrity. Anyone citing the licence-class structure in a rulemaking comment should pull it from the Malta Gaming Authority directly rather than from secondary summaries, because the game-type definitions have been amended since 2018.
The benchmark claim, and what it actually rests on
The common misreading is that Malta became the reference iGaming licensing framework by being permissive. It did not. Suppliers such as Play’n GO and Altenar describe an MGA licence as a global benchmark for operational discipline and player trust, and discipline is the operative word: the value of the licence to a supplier is that counterparties in other markets accept it as evidence the company has been vetted, its systems tested and its player-protection obligations written down.
What the model delivers, stripped of marketing, is four things. Licensing predictability, because the categories and the criteria are published and stable. One point of contact, so a compliance question has one answer rather than a committee. Standardised technical and testing requirements, so a certified platform is certified for the jurisdiction, not for one product line. And player-protection obligations that apply uniformly across licensees, including self-exclusion that covers the whole regulated market.
None of that requires light-touch regulation. It requires that the rules be written once.
How state sportsbook licensing works today
Why there is no federal regulator
US sports betting is regulated state by state because the Supreme Court struck down the federal prohibition in Murphy v. NCAA (2018) on anti-commandeering grounds, not because Congress chose devolution. PASPA’s defect was that it told states what their own laws had to say. Its repeal returned sports wagering to the states’ general authority over gambling, where casino and lottery regulation already sat.
The practical result: legal sports betting now operates in roughly three dozen states plus the District of Columbia, each with its own statute, its own regulator, its own vetting process and its own technical rules. A nationally recognised sports betting licence does not exist in the United States, and the federal hooks that do exist, principally the Wire Act and federal money-laundering law, are enforcement tools, not licensing regimes.
Where the rules diverge most
Divergence is widest in three places. Fees and tax: Pennsylvania charges a $10 million sports wagering operator licence fee and taxes sports betting revenue at 36 per cent, New York taxes mobile sports betting gross revenue at 51 per cent, and Nevada’s gaming revenue tax tops out at 6.75 per cent. Technical standards: most regulators lean on the same independent testing standards for event wagering systems, but each adopts its own version, with its own additions, and requires its own certification. Data integrity: Tennessee and Illinois, among others, mandate official league data for in-play markets, while other states leave sourcing to the operator.
Here is where a single-regulator jurisdiction and a patchwork genuinely differ in daily operation.
| Function | Malta under the 2018 Act | United States |
|---|---|---|
| Licence categories | Two: B2C gaming service, B2B critical gaming supply | Set separately by each state; operator, platform and supplier tiers vary in name and scope |
| Technical certification | One set of requirements for the jurisdiction | Separate certification per state, usually against similar but non-identical standards |
| Compliance contact | One regulator | One regulator per state of operation |
| Self-exclusion scope | Market-wide | State-bounded; exclusion in one state does not bind operators in another |
| Fees and tax | Set nationally | Set per state, from single-digit to 51 per cent effective rates |
The row that should bother people is the fourth. A patchwork of fees is an industry cost. A patchwork of self-exclusion is a player-protection failure, and it is the cost of getting this wrong that no licensing-fee argument captures.
Three mechanisms worth adapting
Three elements of the Maltese approach transfer without requiring any change to how US gambling authority is allocated.
- Mutual recognition of technical certification. States do not need a shared standard to stop paying for the same test twice. They need to accept a certification issued against an agreed baseline standard by an accredited independent lab, then test only their own additions. The machinery for reciprocal vetting already exists in other forms: multi-jurisdictional personal and business history disclosure forms are widely accepted across state gaming regulators. Extending the same logic to platform certification is an administrative decision, not a constitutional one.
- A floor under responsible gambling obligations, agreed between states. Not a ceiling, and not a single national rulebook. A common minimum covering deposit and loss limits, session reminders, advertising restrictions on self-excluded players, and reciprocal honouring of exclusion requests. The National Council on Problem Gambling has already published internet responsible gambling standards that regulators can anchor to; the gap is adoption, not drafting. Bettors who need support can reach the National Problem Gambling Helpline at 1-800-522-4700, or by texting 1-800-MY-RESET, and operators should surface it at the point of exclusion, not only in the terms.
- Licensing tiers that distinguish suppliers from operators. Malta’s B2B Critical Gaming Supply licence exists because a platform provider’s risk profile is not an operator’s. Several US states still fold platform providers, data suppliers and odds providers into vendor categories designed for slot machine manufacturers. Tiering by function clarifies who owes what, and a published supplier tier with proportionate fees keeps smaller providers in the market instead of pricing them out.
Where the comparison breaks down
Malta is one jurisdiction of roughly half a million people regulating a sector that produces 6.3 per cent of its GDP. The United States is fifty jurisdictions with independent constitutional authority over gambling, several of which have tribal gaming compacts layered on top, and in which gambling policy is a live electoral question rather than an industrial strategy. Those differences are not details.
The legal bases diverge too. Malta’s framework operates inside an EU single market with free movement of services, which gives a Maltese licence commercial reach that no state licence has. A US state cannot grant a licence that binds another state, and Congress cannot direct states to write particular gambling rules; that is precisely what Murphy prohibited. So I will say it plainly: I would not spend political capital arguing for a federal sports betting regulator or a national licence. It is not constitutionally straightforward, it has no constituency among state regulators who currently collect the revenue, and it is unnecessary for the three mechanisms above.
What states rewriting their rules should take from this
The transferable part of Malta’s 2018 reform is the drafting discipline, not the architecture. Write the categories once, define obligations by what a company does rather than by what it is called, and resist adding state-specific technical variations that no one can justify on player-protection grounds.
Whether states will do any of this voluntarily is genuinely unsettled. Reciprocal certification costs a regulator leverage, and a responsible gambling floor negotiated between states has no enforcement mechanism if one of them defects. The honest position is that the incentives currently run the other way, and that the cost of leaving them there is paid in two places: by suppliers in duplicated certification, and by excluded bettors who find that a state line undoes their own decision to stop.
About the Author
