The Malta Gaming Authority (MGA) and Malta Digital Innovation Authority (MDIA) launched an AI Gaming Charter on 18 September 2026. It is a voluntary framework for the responsible use of artificial intelligence in gaming operations, not a new gaming licence condition. The distinction matters to operators and suppliers deciding how to govern AI in player protection, fraud detection, customer interaction and internal work.
The MGA announcement and the 48-page charter are the primary records. This report describes what they say as of 23 September 2026; it does not treat voluntary recommendations as enforceable new rules.
What the MGA published
The jointly developed charter is a sector-specific best-practice framework. Its definitions cover a gaming licensee authorised by the MGA to provide a B2C gaming service or B2B critical gaming supply. It addresses AI used across operations, from customer service and game development to fraud detection and back-office work. It does not limit its scope to a model that directly talks to a player.
The MGA says the document followed a sector-wide survey, targeted licensee discussions and a consultation. The launch notice identifies player protection, fraud detection, customer interaction and operational decisions as areas where AI may be used. Those examples do not mean every licensee uses such systems, or that a specific tool has regulatory approval.
The charter's 18 September first issue runs to 48 pages. Alongside a study of AI adoption, it sets out principles on transparency, fairness, environmental sustainability, data governance, human oversight, reliability and monitoring. An annex maps charter principles to existing EU AI Act and GDPR concepts. The document's breadth is notable, but its own caveat is equally important: a recommendation in the charter is not automatically a new legal duty.
Voluntary guidance, not a new licence requirement
The purpose and scope section states that the charter is voluntary and does not create, modify or replace legal or regulatory obligations. It also says licensees must determine their role in relation to each AI system—such as provider or deployer—and assess any applicable requirements under existing law separately. BETTIMES therefore would not describe adoption of the charter as compulsory, a certification, or a licence renewal condition.
The distinction extends to technology. The document differentiates an AI system from simple scripted or rules-based automation. A fixed workflow that follows predefined human-programmed instructions generally falls outside the charter's AI-system scope. An AI-driven process that materially influences a player, compliance decision or regulated outcome calls for more proportionate oversight. The charter says lower-impact internal tools may need lighter governance than systems affecting players or integrity.
For licensees, that points to a practical first step: inventory the actual systems in use, their purpose, who supplies and deploys them, what data they touch, and whether a person can review or override consequential outcomes. This is BETTIMES' operational reading of the charter, not an MGA checklist or a newly imposed filing requirement. The separate MGA Key Functions and reporting guide explains existing governance and reporting categories; the new AI document should not be conflated with those duties.
Why it matters to the iGaming supply chain
AI deployment can cross company boundaries. A game studio, player-account platform, fraud tool and licensed operator may each handle part of the same workflow. The charter's provider/deployer distinction asks a licensee to identify its own role rather than assume a vendor contract transfers accountability. That question is especially relevant to the operator-versus-B2B supplier boundary, which is a separate licensing issue from voluntary AI governance.
The charter encourages proportionate risk assessment, impact assessment where relevant, continued monitoring and human oversight. It also recommends identifying responsible people within a licensee that chooses to adopt it. None of that proves that the MGA has approved an individual AI product or that AI can replace established player-protection decisions. The document explicitly frames AI as a support for existing governance rather than a substitute for human judgement.
What remains open
The publication does not announce a mandatory adoption date, a new AI licence category or an automatic penalty for not signing up. It does not identify individual licensed companies as charter adopters in the launch notice. Further MGA or MDIA implementation material may add examples, but any later claim about a company's adoption or the legal effect of the charter needs its own dated source.
For now, the clearest industry signal is a voluntary common reference for AI governance in Malta's gaming sector, layered on top of—not in place of—the existing legal framework. That makes the primary document useful to both B2C operators and B2B suppliers, while leaving the exact obligations for a given system to the applicable law and the facts of its use.
Frequently asked questions
Is the MGA AI Gaming Charter mandatory?
No. The charter says it is voluntary and does not create new legal or regulatory obligations, nor replace duties under existing law. The MGA strongly encourages licensees to adopt its principles, but that is different from a binding new licence condition. A company still needs to check any independently applicable AI, data-protection and gaming requirements.
Does the charter apply only to customer-facing AI?
No. Its scope includes AI systems used in internal and back-office operations as well as systems that affect players. The charter recommends applying governance proportionately to the nature, purpose, scale and risk of each system. It also distinguishes actual AI systems from purely rules-based automation that generally falls outside its defined scope.
Which gaming businesses does it address?
The charter defines a gaming licensee as an entity licensed by the MGA to provide B2C gaming services and/or B2B critical gaming supply. The relevant recommendations depend on what AI systems the business develops, buys or uses and its role in relation to them. The publication is not evidence that every licensee has adopted the charter.