The Curaçao appeals court was especially critical of the lack of evidence. The higher court determined that a master license holder does not need to continue supervising a former sublicensee after the contract expires.
A Curaçao appeals court overturned a lower court decision that had held GSP or Gaming Services Provider on December 16. This is a former master license holder. They were responsible for unpaid winnings from an online casino that operated under an expired sublicense. The conflict involved a site that Orient Power Holdings managed between November 2015 and November 2017, topbet.eu. Curaçao Court rules in favor of license holder in online casino winnings dispute.
Next.io reports that the player behind the claim alleged he had won $123,000 on topbet.eu. He also sued GSP on April 22 after those winnings were not paid. Concluding that GSP had breached a special duty of care that required the company to make sure that Orient met its license obligations even afdter their contractual relationship has ended, a court of first instance ruled in favor of the player.
The appeal process did not uphold this reasoning. The higher court found no legal basis to require a master license holder to continue supervising a former sublicensee after the contract had expired. The judges were clear that no law required GSP to supervise a business relationship that had ended years prior.
Numerous factual rulings that motivated the decision of the lower court also did not survive reexamination. The higher court found no legal basis for this requirement. A master license holder does not have to continue supervising a former sublicensee after the contract expires.
The Curaçao appeals court was especially critical of the lack of evidence showing when the disputed winnings were actually earned.
