Curaçao Court Sides with License Holder in Online Casino Winnings Dispute

On December 16, a Curaçao appeals court overturned a lower court decision that had held Gaming Services Provider (GSP), a former master licence holder, responsible for unpaid winnings from an online casino that operated with an expired sublicence. The conflict involved topbet.eu, a site that Orient Power Holdings managed between November 2015 and November 2017. During that period, the company was covered by GSP’s master license.

The Appeals Court Reexamined the Evidence

According to a recent Next.io report, the player behind the claim alleged that he had won $123,000 on topbet.eu and sued GSP in April 2022 after those winnings were not paid. A court of first instance ruled in favor of the player, concluding that GSP had breached a special duty of care that required the company to ensure that Orient met its license obligations even after their contractual relationship had ended.

The appeal process did not reaffirm this reasoning. The higher court found no legal justification for requiring a master license holder to continue supervising a former sublicensee once a contract had expired. The judges were clear that no law required GSP to supervise a business relationship that had ended years earlier.

Several factual rulings that motivated the lower court’s decision also did not survive reexamination. GSP had faced scrutiny for allowing topbet.eu to continue displaying license references after November 2017 without notifying users about the changes to the licensing agreement. The new review discovered that the plaintiff had used screenshots dating back to a period when the sublicense was still valid, and there was no evidence of the alleged violation.

Such Disputes Often Come with Significant Complexity

The Curaçao appeals court was especially critical of the lack of evidence showing when the disputed winnings were actually earned. The plaintiff’s case argued that he had won roughly $150,000, with $27,000 paid out and a final payment in May 2020. However, the court required concrete evidence that the activity happened when GSP still had a contractual relationship with Orient. The judges fully sided with GSP, ordering the player to pay its legal costs.

The decision comes at a time when courts in Curaçao and the Netherlands have taken a tougher stance on Curaçao’s former sublicensing system. A 2024 Dutch Supreme Court ruling involving unpaid winnings at Bahsine casino underscored the responsibility of master license holders to ensure that sublicensees pay player winnings and comply with the rules.

This recent judgment underlines the complexities of such disputes. The ruling establishes clear boundaries on timing and relevant evidence that could set a precedent for future cases. It also signals that while license holders remain responsible for operational deficiencies under their watch, that responsibility does not stretch indefinitely into the past.