Curaçao appeals court lifts liability

On 16 December 2025, the Curaçao Court of Appeal overturned a lower court ruling and held that Gaming Services Provider (GSP), a former master licence holder, is not liable for the unpaid $123,000 in claimed winnings sought by a player of the iGaming operator topbet.eu, according to reports by next.io.

Background of the unpaid winnings dispute

The player sought payment of winnings claimed on the topbet.eu platform, which was operated by Orient Power Holdings under a sublicence.

The sublicence agreement between GSP and the operator was in force from 1 November 2015 to 1 November 2017.

The lawsuit was filed only in April 2022, several years after the agreement had expired.

Position of the Curaçao Court of Appeal

No obligation to supervise

The court stated that under the repealed Offshore Hazard Games Ordinance 1993, there is no legal rule requiring a master licence holder to supervise a former sublicensee after the agreement has ended.

The appeals court explicitly noted that there is neither a written nor an unwritten rule that obliges continued supervision once a sublicence has expired.

No proof of when the winnings were earned

A key issue in the case was the lack of evidence showing that the disputed winnings were earned during the period when the sublicence was valid.

The player’s representative claimed total winnings of $150,000, of which $27,000 had allegedly been paid earlier, with a final payment said to have been made in May 2020.

The court concluded that this information did not prove the winnings were accumulated while the agreement between GSP and Orient Power Holdings was still in effect.

Reversal of the lower court decision

Rejection of the first-instance court’s findings

The lower court had previously found GSP liable, citing alleged breaches of duty and a failure to inform players about the end of the licensing arrangement.

The appeals court dismissed these arguments, noting that the screenshots submitted showing licence references related to a period when the agreement was still active.

Foreign sublicensee issue

The claim that rules were breached by granting a sublicence to a foreign company was also rejected.

The court held that the requirement to be established in Curaçao applied to licence holders, but not to sublicensees.

Legal costs

As a result of the proceedings, the player was ordered to reimburse Gaming Services Provider for its legal costs.

The appeals court also agreed with the defence’s argument that imposing such liability could have negative consequences for players.