Court protects master licenses and limits liability post-contract
A ruling by the Court of Appeals overturns a previous judgment and establishes that holders such as Gaming Services Provider (GSP) are not responsible for the debts of their sublicensees once the commercial relationship has ended. The decision puts an end to uncertainty regarding retroactive claims.
As Curacao advances towards its new regulatory ecosystem, the island’s courts continue resolving conflicts inherited from the old system. In a decision that sets a key precedent for the industry, an appeals court has ruled in favor of a master license holder, defining the extent of their legal responsibility towards players.
The case involved Gaming Services Provider (GSP) against a user of the site topbet.eu, which was at the time operated by the company Orient Power Holdings under a sublicense from GSP. The plaintiff claimed US$ 123,000 in unpaid winnings and initiated legal action in 2022, five years after the contract between GSP and the operator had ended (the relationship was active between 2015 and 2017).
The end of the perpetual "Duty of Care"
At first instance, the court had ruled in favor of the player, arguing that GSP had breached a "special duty of care" by failing to supervise the operator, even after the contractual relationship had ended. However, the Court of Appeals destroyed this argument.
The judges were categorical: under Curacao law, there is no provision requiring the holder of a master license to oversee a former sublicensee once the contract has expired. Since there was no valid legal relationship at the time of the claim, there is no joint liability. This point is crucial because it protects master license owners from becoming perpetual guarantors of operators they no longer control.
No evidence and out of time
The ruling also dismissed the claim on evidentiary grounds. The court noted that the player failed to prove that the claimed winnings were generated during the period when the sublicense was valid. Additionally, GSP successfully argued that its data retention policy is five years, so when contacted in 2022 about events from 2017 or earlier, they no longer had records to verify the claim.
Another relevant aspect of the judgment was the affirmation of the legality of the previous business model. The judges rejected the idea that granting sublicenses to foreign companies (such as Orient Power) was illegal, clarifying that the requirement to be based in Curacao applied to the master license holder, not to their international operators.
With the annulment of the first instance ruling, the plaintiff was ordered to pay GSP’s legal costs, sending a clear message about the viability of future untimely litigation in the jurisdiction.
Tags: Curazao, Curazao license regulation, offshore iGaming licenses