WILLEMSTAD – A new ruling by the Court of First Instance of Curaçao clarifies the balance between an online casino’s duty to protect players and the personal responsibility of gamblers.
The case involved a player who claimed that an online casino should have recognized signs of a gambling problem and prevented further losses. The player pointed to large deposits, repeated bonus requests and attempts to close his account as evidence that the operator should have intervened.
The court acknowledged that certain gambling patterns can indicate problematic behavior. However, it concluded that the casino could not be held responsible because the player had not clearly informed the operator that he had a gambling problem before December 2023.
The court found that the player had previously used a self-exclusion option by closing his account for one year in 2021. However, when he later contacted the casino, he did not specifically indicate that he was struggling with addiction or that gambling had caused him financial problems.
The judge also considered the player’s requests to close his account. According to the ruling, the casino repeatedly requested identification documents before permanently closing the account. Because the player did not provide the required documents, the court found that it could not conclude that the casino had ignored his requests.
The court further ruled that the casino only became aware of the player’s depression following the death of his mother in 2022 when he provided that information in March 2025. After receiving the information, the account was closed.
The decision comes amid broader international discussions about responsible gambling, player protection and the responsibilities of online gambling operators.
Curaçao has been reforming its online gaming sector through the implementation of the National Ordinance on Games of Chance (LOK), which introduced a new regulatory framework and strengthened supervision of the industry.
The ruling does not mean that online casinos are free from responsibility. Previous Curaçao court cases have found that operators can face liability in certain circumstances, particularly when they fail to meet contractual obligations or specific legal duties.
In this case, however, the court concluded that the player did not prove that the casino violated its duty of care or misused a possible gambling addiction.