WILLEMSTAD – The Joint Court of Justice in Curaçao has rejected a claim brought by the Foundation for the Representation of Victims of Online Gambling (SBGOK) against gambling operator SG International N.V. (SGI), overturning an earlier ruling in favor of the foundation. The Court concluded that the casino’s terms and conditions applied and that the player had violated rules prohibiting multiple accounts.
The dispute involved a Belgian player who opened an account with SGI’s online casino in June 2019. He deposited a total of €18,430 and subsequently lost the money.
SGI closed the account on June 29, 2019, after the player reported possible unauthorized use of one of his credit cards.
Several months later, on October 29, the player opened another account using a different email address. He deposited another €5,850 in December, after which the balance on the account eventually increased to €71,000.
When the player requested a withdrawal, the casino refused to pay the winnings, citing, among other things, its prohibition against duplicate accounts. Following successful verification, SGI did return the €5,850 in deposits on January 17, 2020.
The player subsequently sold and transferred his claim against SGI to SBGOK in February 2020. The foundation held SGI liable for €65,000 in July of that year. After extensive correspondence failed to resolve the dispute, the matter went to court.
SBGOK initially prevailed, but SGI appealed.
A central issue in the appeal was whether the casino could rely on its general terms and conditions. The lower court had concluded that the terms could be invalidated because SGI had not sufficiently demonstrated that the player had been given a reasonable opportunity to review them.
The Joint Court reached a different conclusion. It found that SGI had sufficiently demonstrated that players were required to accept the terms and conditions when creating an account. The terms could be accessed and saved through a link during registration.
The Court therefore determined that the terms formed part of the agreement between the casino and the player.
It also examined provisions prohibiting players from maintaining multiple accounts and restricting the transfer of claims to third parties. According to the Court, those provisions were not unreasonable.
Among other considerations, the Court pointed to risks associated with fraud, money laundering and terrorist financing, as well as the fact that online gambling accounts are linked to the identity of individual players.
As a result, the Court concluded that the Belgian player could not validly transfer the claim to SBGOK. The foundation was therefore not entitled to pursue the claim on his behalf. If the player wants to pursue such a claim, he would have to initiate proceedings himself.
The Court additionally found that the player had breached the casino’s rules by opening a second account using another email address. SGI was consequently entitled to withhold the winnings.
The ruling also addresses the timing of checks by online casinos. According to the Court, it is not automatically unlawful for an operator to investigate whether a player has maintained multiple accounts only when the player requests a withdrawal.
The Joint Court overturned the earlier judgment and dismissed SBGOK’s claim. The foundation was also ordered to pay the legal costs associated with both the original proceedings and the appeal.