AI Mystery Solved: Michael Schmitt Confirmed Using AI Avatar by Malta Media

The online gambling industry is no stranger to scandal, but this case reaches a new level of digital curiosity. Michael Schmitt, a journalist known for deep dives into Midas Entertainment and the restructuring of Tipico, is at the center of a debate over artificial intelligence. For months, industry insiders wondered about the whereabouts of the man who usually sheds light on the dark corners of corporate structures in Malta. His LinkedIn profile had disappeared without a trace earlier this year, while articles continued to appear under his name on Malta Media. The uncertainty culminated in the discovery that the editor's latest video messages were not recorded by him at all, but by a machine.

It was a digital trail that eventually led to the truth. Initial doubts arose when videos appeared on Schmitt's X account that looked unnaturally animated. The platform Tribuna attempted to reach out as early as July 6, but received no response. It wasn't until October 12, 2026, that a general email address from Malta Media replied to an official inquiry. The response was signed by Michael Schmitt in his capacity as Executive Editor. In it, he frankly admitted that an AI avatar was being used for video productions. However, the sender declined an offer for a short, unrecorded video call to verify his identity, failing to fully lift the veil of mystery.

Numbers and facts

The chronology of events shows a precise pattern of digital activity despite personal absence. The first demonstrably AI-generated video was uploaded to Schmitt's X profile on July 4. The timing is particularly sensitive given other revelations. On September 22, security researcher Lilith Wittmann, in cooperation with media outlets like NDR, NRK, and SVT, published an investigation into Curacao's gambling regulator. She claimed to have logged into the Curacao Gaming Control Board's systems as early as December 2025 under a false identity to view licensing data for nine months.

Schmitt, in turn, published an article on October 7 criticizing Wittmann's methods and suggesting legal action by data protection authorities and prosecutors. In the midst of this high-stakes dispute, the artificial videos seemed out of place. Exactly who is behind the creation of these avatars or who served as the model for the AI likeness remains unclear. While Malta Media emphasized that Schmitt was fine, they missed the opportunity to prove it with a simple live conversation.

Background

Michael Schmitt is considered one of the few journalists brave enough to tackle topics like the links between Midas Entertainment and private foundations in Malta. His coverage of the dispute between industry giants like Evolution, Playtech, and Black Cube made him a well-known figure. The accusation of lack of transparency carries even more weight when an investigative journalist replaces his physical presence with an algorithm.

"The sender confirmed he was ok and confessed the videos used his AI avatar." - Quote from the report regarding the communication with Malta Media.

Using AI avatars in journalism is a double-edged sword. On one hand, it allows for rapid video production; on the other, it undermines trust in authorship, especially when the identity of the person behind it can no longer be verified beyond doubt. In Schmitt's case, the question remains whether the real journalist still has full control over the content published under his name.

Why it matters for German players

For German players who rely on reputable information, this case is a warning. Transparency is the highest priority, especially when it comes to evaluating licenses and providers. In Germany, the market has been strictly regulated since the State Treaty on Gambling 2021 (GlüStV 2021). Players should critically question information if it comes from portals that do not employ clearly verifiable editors.

The Joint Gambling Authority of the States (GGL) maintains a so-called whitelist. Only providers listed there have a German license and are subject to strict rules, such as the deposit limit of 1,000 euros per month and the stake limit of 1 euro per spin for slots. Furthermore, the LUGAS system monitors compliance with these limits. When journalists write about regulatory issues in Curacao or Malta, it often has a direct impact on the perception of safety. However, German users should primarily stick to GGL standards, as Curacao licenses offer no protection in the German legal space and are often subject to security vulnerabilities, as the Wittmann case illustrates.

What it means for GGL-licensed casinos

Casinos with a GGL license indirectly benefit from the exposure of such AI structures in foreign media. It highlights the value of clarity and state supervision. While media outlets argue over the lack of transparency in Curacao, German regulation provides a solid foundation. Operators in Germany must ensure that their marketing activities are not associated with questionable or artificially generated content that could undermine player trust. The use of AI in a professional environment must always be labeled as such to maintain journalistic integrity.