Curaçao Appeals Court Rules in Favor of License Holder in Online Casino Winnings Dispute
Background of the Case
On December 16, the Curaçao appeals court reversed an earlier ruling that held Gaming Services Provider (GSP), a former master license holder, liable for unpaid winnings from an online casino operating under an expired sublicence. The dispute involved the website topbet.eu, which was managed by Orient Power Holdings between November 2015 and November 2017. During this time, the site operated under GSP’s master license.
Reevaluation by the Appeals Court
The legal battle began when a player claimed to have won $123,000 on topbet.eu and filed a lawsuit against GSP in April 2022 after the winnings remained unpaid. The initial court ruled in favor of the player, deciding that GSP had a duty of care to ensure Orient Power Holdings met its licensing obligations even after their contract ended.
However, upon appeal, the higher court rejected this view. It determined there was no legal basis to hold a master license holder responsible for overseeing a former sublicensee once their contract had expired. The judges emphasized that GSP was not required by law to supervise a relationship that had ended years earlier.
Additionally, several factual points supporting the lower court’s decision were challenged. Although GSP was criticized for allowing topbet.eu to continue displaying license information after November 2017 without informing users about the change, the appeal court found that the evidence presented used screenshots from when the sublicense was still valid. There was no proof of violations occurring after the sublicense expired.
Complexities in Casino Licensing Disputes
The appeals court highlighted the complexity surrounding the timing of the player’s winnings. The plaintiff claimed to have won approximately $150,000, with $27,000 paid out and a final payment due in May 2020. Nevertheless, the court required clear evidence showing these winnings occurred within the period that GSP had a contractual relationship with Orient. With insufficient proof, the court ruled in favor of GSP and ordered the plaintiff to cover legal expenses.
This ruling comes amid increased scrutiny of Curaçao’s sublicensing system by courts in both Curaçao and the Netherlands. In 2024, the Dutch Supreme Court reaffirmed the responsibility of master license holders to ensure sublicensees fulfill their obligations, including paying player winnings and adhering to regulatory requirements.
The recent court decision sheds light on the intricate nature of such disputes. It sets important limits regarding the timing and kind of evidence needed to hold license holders accountable. While license holders remain responsible for issues that arise under their supervision, this responsibility does not extend indefinitely into the past.
