Curacao Court of Appeal: Master Licensee Not Liable for iGaming Operator's Debts

Appeal Court Decision: Master Licensee Not Liable for Operator's Obligations

On December 16, 2025, the Curaçao Court of Appeal overturned the decision of the court of first instance in a case concerning unpaid winnings to a player on the iGaming platform topbet.eu. The court ruled that the former master licensee, Gaming Services Provider (GSP), was not liable for the $123,000 debt claimed by the player.

The plaintiff had previously attempted to hold GSP liable as the licensing entity, arguing that the master licensee was obligated to guarantee payments to operators operating under its sublicense. However, the appellate court reached the opposite conclusion.

Expiration of Sublicense and Lack of Proof of Winnings

The sublicense agreement between GSP and operator Orient Power Holdings was in effect from November 2015 to November 2017.

The player's lawsuit was filed only in April 2022—almost five years after the sublicense agreement terminated. The court emphasized that the plaintiff failed to prove that the winnings were received during the license period, a key factor in its decision.

Lack of Duty to Monitor Former Sublicensees

An important legal finding by the court was the assertion that Curaçao law does not require a master licensee to monitor the activities of a former sublicensee after the agreement is terminated.

Therefore, liability for the operator's actions after the licensing agreement expires cannot automatically be assigned to the former master licensee.

Court costs awarded to the player

Furthermore, the court ordered the plaintiff to compensate GSP for its legal costs. This decision could set a precedent that will complicate players' attempts to hold licensing authorities accountable for the actions of operators.

Conflicting Practice: The Position of the Dutch Supreme Court

Interestingly, in December 2024, the Dutch Supreme Court issued a contrary ruling in the Bahsine Casino case. In this case, the master licensee, Cyberluck Curaçao NV, was found liable alongside its sub-licensee, demonstrating the lack of uniform case law in international jurisprudence on the liability of licensing authorities.

What does this mean for the iGaming industry?

The Curaçao Court of Appeal's decision could significantly impact the gambling and licensing markets:

• Master licensees will receive additional legal protection;
• Players will find it more difficult to seek compensation through licensing authorities;
• Operators will bear more personalized legal liability;
• The importance of contractual terms and evidence increases.

Conclusion

The Curaçao court decision reinforces the trend toward separating liability between licensing authorities and operators. However, conflicting case law in Europe shows that the legal position on such cases has not yet been fully established and may evolve as iGaming regulation develops.

IT-OFFSHORE will help you understand licensing, legal risks, and support for iGaming projects in international jurisdictions.