The Curaçao appeals court has overruled the decision of a lower court that had found a former master licensee to be liable for players’ winnings that had not been paid at an online casino operating under a long, expired sublicense.
On 16 December, the Court held that the former master licensee Gaming Services Provider (GSP) was not liable for $123, 000 of alleged player winnings at topbet.eu after the expiration of the GSP’s contract with the operator
The Court further noted that under the then existing Offshore Hazard Games Ordinance 1993, which has since been repealed, licensees were not legally required to monitor their former sublicensees after the termination of their agreements.
The court said:
There is no written or unwritten legal rule that requires a license holder to continue to (effectively) supervise the former sublicence holder after the contractual sublicence ends.
GSP had collaborated with Orient Power Holdings for the running of topbet.eu between 1 November 2015 and 1 November 2017. A player won $123, 000 and after the casino refused to pay him, he filed a lawsuit in April 2022.
The player had won in the lower court, which held GSP responsible for breach of a special duty of care and failing to ensure Orient’s compliance with license conditions. Besides other things, the lower court considered GSP at fault for not ensuring the removal of license references by topbet.eu after the termination of the agreement and for not informing the players about the change of the license.
Rejecting these allegations, the appeals court did not find any proof that topbet.eu had displayed GSPs license after November 2017. The player’s screenshots came from the period when the contract was still valid.
The court also rejected the claim that GSP was in breach of its obligations by granting a sublicence to Orient, a foreign company. While the ordinance required permit holders to be residents of Curaçao, the court ruled that this provision did not apply to sublicensees.
The court added:
GSP’s attorney argued at the hearing that this would cause significant unrest among players, which nobody wants. The court finds this argument plausible.
The player’s case was seriously undermined by the lack of any proof indicating the precise moment when the winnings were earned. The player’s lawyer claimed that the total winnings amounted to $150, 000, highlighting the partial payments of $27, 000 and the last payment in May 2020.
The judge said that there was no proof that the winning amount that was not paid was won at the time when GSP had a contract with Orient. GSP explained that it could not furnish the data as it kept the records only for five years and was not contacted until 2022.
The decision was that the player should compensate GSP for the legal costs.
