Curaçao Court Clears Former Master Licence Holder Of Liability For Unpaid Player Winnings

A Curaçao appeals court has ruled that a former master licence holder cannot be held responsible for unpaid player winnings linked to an online casino operated under a sublicence that expired years earlier. 

The ruling on 16 December exempted former master licensee Gaming Services Provider (GSP) from paying $123,000 in winnings to a player who gambled on topbet.eu after their contract with the operator had ended. The court concluded that there was no legal basis under Curaçao’s now-repealed Offshore Hazard Games Ordinance 1993, requiring licence holders to supervise a former sublicensee once the contractual relationship expired 

The court stated: “There is no written or unwritten legal rule that requires a licence holder to continue to (effectively) supervise the former sublicence holder after the contractual sublicence ends.”

Dispute linked to expired sublicence agreement

GSP entered into a sublicence agreement with Orient Power Holdings to operate topbet.eu from 1 November 2015 to 1 November 2017. Several years later, a player claimed to have won $123,000 on the platform and initiated legal proceedings in April 2022 after the winnings were not paid.

The player’s case was initially vindicated by the lower court, which ruled that GSP was liable due to a breach in its duty of care and failure to make Orient comply with licence conditions. 

However, the appeals court rejected these arguments, stating that the licence holder held no ongoing supervisory obligations once a sublicence had expired.

Court rejects concept of post-contract supervision

Furthermore, the court rejected the idea that GSP had breached its obligations by failing to ensure topbet.eu removed references to its licence following the termination of the agreement.

The court noted that the screenshots submitted by the player showing GSP’s licence details dated from the period when the sublicence was still active. There was no evidence that such references remained after November 2017.

Claims that GSP had acted unlawfully by granting a sublicence to a foreign company were also dismissed. While the ordinance required permit holders to be established in Curaçao, the appeals court ruled that this requirement did not extend to sublicensees.

Lack of evidence undermines player claim

Another weakness in the player’s case was the absence of clear evidence showing when the winnings were accrued. The player’s representative claimed total winnings of $150,000, with partial payments amounting to $27,000 and a final payment made in May 2020.

The court found this timeline insufficient to establish that the unpaid winnings were generated while GSP’s sublicence agreement was active. GSP also stated that it retained operational data for only five years and was not contacted about the claim until 2022.

The appeals court ordered the player to pay GSP’s legal costs, bringing the case to an end.