Malta’s MGA Sees ‘Significant Interest’ in Prediction Markets

The Malta Gaming Authority is seeing “significant interest” in prediction markets from existing and prospective licensees, an MGA spokesperson told Vultax in a written response on 16 October.

The MGA said its existing framework can accommodate such products, with the licence category depending on how each offering works. Some may fall under Type 2, covering fixed-odds betting, or Type 3, covering peer-to-peer or exchange-based betting.

“Prediction markets are not new to the Maltese regulatory framework,” the MGA spokesperson said. The MGA described its framework as neutral both to technology and to games. Its published game-type definitions distinguish betting against an operator that manages its own risk from commission-based games in which the operator does not take that gaming risk.

The possibility of using an existing category still comes with an authorisation requirement. Operators seeking to offer licensable gaming products in or from Malta must hold the appropriate MGA authorisation, the spokesperson said. The MGA described offering those products without the required authorisation as unlawful.

The interest comes from two groups: existing licensees considering additional products and prospective licensees exploring the Maltese framework. The authority gave no application count, operator names or approval dates.

Its response does not establish that Polymarket or Kalshi has applied for, or received, a Maltese licence. It also supplies no separate finding about election or interest-rate contracts and does not resolve our question about serving customers in other EU countries.

The licensing position and operator interest predate this reply. SiGMA News reported on 2 September that some prediction-market products could fall under the existing Type 2 or Type 3 categories. SBC News’s 5 October summit recap also reported MGA chief executive Charles Mizzi’s comments about operator interest and applications. The 16 October response provides Vultax with a further written statement identifying interest from both existing and prospective licensees.

For readers following European regulation, the distinction between a licensing route and action against a particular platform matters. Three written responses in Vultax’s reporting describe different stages:

These are dated accounts of different questions and actions. The Czech blocking deadline is not an access test, and the German and Czech replies do not determine the treatment of a product in Malta.

The MGA spokesperson said the authority continues to monitor developments and engage with stakeholders, including other national competent authorities, on how emerging products are considered within its existing framework.

The Malta statements come from an MGA spokesperson’s written response to Vultax on 16 October 2026. The comparison uses the separately dated authority responses linked in the table; it is not a fresh audit of enforcement or network access on 17 October.