WILLEMSTAD – The Curaçao Court of Appeal has overturned a lower court ruling that held a former master gaming licence holder responsible for unpaid player winnings from an online casino that continued operating after its sublicence had expired. The decision clarifies that a master licence holder’s responsibility does not extend indefinitely once a contractual relationship with a sublicencee has ended.
The case centered on the online casino topbet.eu, which was operated by Orient Power Holdings between November 2015 and November 2017 under a master licence issued by Gaming Services Provider (GSP). A player claimed to have won approximately USD 123,000 on the platform and sued GSP in April 2022 after the winnings were allegedly not paid.
A court of first instance initially ruled in favor of the player, finding that GSP had breached a special duty of care by failing to ensure that Orient Power Holdings met its licensing obligations, even after their contractual relationship had expired. That ruling suggested that the master licence holder should have continued supervising the former sublicencee.
On appeal, however, the judges rejected that reasoning. The Court of Appeal ruled that there is no legal basis requiring a former master licence holder to supervise or remain responsible for a sublicencee once the licensing agreement has ended. According to the court, no law obliges a licence holder to oversee a business relationship that ceased years earlier.
The appellate judges also reassessed key factual findings from the lower court. GSP had been criticized for allowing topbet.eu to continue displaying licence references after November 2017 without informing users of changes to the licensing status. The appeal court found that the evidence relied upon by the player consisted of screenshots from a period when the sublicence was still valid and did not substantiate claims of misconduct after the contract had expired.
A central issue in the case was the timing of the alleged winnings. The player argued that total winnings amounted to around USD 150,000, of which USD 27,000 had been paid, with a final payment allegedly due in May 2020. The court ruled that there was insufficient evidence to show that the disputed winnings were generated during the period when GSP still had a contractual relationship with Orient Power Holdings.
As a result, the Court of Appeal ruled fully in favor of GSP and ordered the player to cover the company’s legal costs.
The ruling comes amid increasing judicial scrutiny of Curaçao’s former sublicensing system. Courts in Curaçao and the Netherlands have taken a stricter view of the responsibilities of master licence holders, including a 2024 Dutch Supreme Court decision that emphasized the obligation of licence holders to ensure that players are paid when operations fall under their supervision.
At the same time, the latest Curaçao judgment underscores that such responsibility has limits. According to the court, licence holders remain accountable for deficiencies that occur under their watch, but that accountability does not extend indefinitely once a licensing relationship has ended.
