WILLEMSTAD – The Court of First Instance of Curaçao has dismissed a lawsuit brought by businessman Mario Fiorini and several associated companies against online commentator Luigi Angelo Faneyte, ruling that his publications about Curaçao's online gambling industry were protected by freedom of expression.
In its judgment delivered on November 2, 2026, the court rejected demands that Faneyte remove his publications, issue corrections, and pay an advance of XCG 130,000 in damages.
The case, registered under number CUR202504781, involved Fiorini, Phaedra Hanst, and IGA Trust B.V., a company active in the online gambling sector.
Luigi Faneyte
The plaintiffs argued that Faneyte had published damaging and inaccurate allegations about their involvement in the gambling industry, including claims relating to corruption, fraud, and the controversial licensing system.
However, the court concluded that the publications did not constitute unlawful conduct toward Fiorini or the other plaintiffs.
Dispute Over Gambling Industry Publications
Faneyte, an economist and lecturer who is also active as a journalist and online commentator, has frequently published criticism of Curaçao's gambling sector.
He previously worked as an employee of a parliamentary faction and participated in public discussions surrounding the country's gambling legislation.
The dispute arose from several publications and statements concerning the online gambling industry, including comments about the former licensing system and the introduction of new legislation.
Among the disputed publications was an interview involving Fiorini that appeared on January 9, 2024, on a website associated with IGA Group.
Faneyte subsequently discussed Fiorini's role in the gambling sector and his involvement in discussions surrounding the proposed National Ordinance on Games of Chance, known as the LOK.
The court also examined allegations made by Faneyte in criminal complaints submitted in November and December 2024.
These complaints referred to suspected irregularities involving gambling businesses, licensing arrangements, and individuals connected to the industry.
Fiorini and the other plaintiffs maintained that the allegations were unfounded and had damaged their reputations.
Court Emphasizes Public Interest in Gambling Regulation
In assessing the dispute, the court considered the competing rights to freedom of expression and protection of reputation.
The judgment referred extensively to European Court of Human Rights case law concerning public debate, journalism, and the circumstances under which freedom of expression may be restricted.
The court determined that Curaçao's online gambling industry, particularly the relationship between the sector and government regulation, is a matter of substantial public interest.
It also considered Fiorini's position within the industry.
According to the judgment, Fiorini had publicly participated in discussions about gambling legislation and had been involved in efforts to influence the development of the regulatory framework.
The court noted that individuals who voluntarily participate in public debates on controversial matters must generally tolerate a greater degree of criticism than private citizens who remain outside public discussion.
The judgment also acknowledged that Faneyte's publications sometimes used strong language.
However, the court found that the context of the debate and the public importance of the subject were relevant to determining whether his statements crossed the boundaries of lawful expression.
Criminal Complaints Were Not Automatically Unlawful
A significant part of the dispute concerned criminal complaints Faneyte had submitted to authorities.
Fiorini argued that these complaints contained incorrect allegations and had been used to damage his reputation.
The court rejected the argument that the complaints were unlawful merely because they contained allegations that had not been established as facts.
It examined the broader circumstances, including the information available to Faneyte and the public debate surrounding the gambling sector.
The court also noted that the allegations did not concern Fiorini alone but formed part of wider complaints involving the gambling industry and its regulatory arrangements.
Importantly, the ruling does not establish that the allegations made in the complaints were true.
Rather, the court determined that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated that Faneyte acted unlawfully by making the complaints and discussing the matters publicly.
The distinction is significant because the dismissal of a defamation-related claim does not amount to judicial confirmation of the underlying accusations.
All Claims Dismissed
Fiorini and the other plaintiffs had requested several remedies.
They sought the removal of Faneyte's disputed social media statements, a prohibition on further allegedly unlawful publications, and public corrections.
They also requested an advance payment of XCG 130,000 in damages.
The court dismissed all these claims.
It also rejected Faneyte's counterclaim, in which he had sought a declaration concerning the alleged misuse of legal proceedings and the European Union's anti-SLAPP framework.
The court concluded that the requirements for granting that counterclaim had not been met.
As a result, neither side obtained the substantive relief it had requested.
Fiorini Ordered to Pay Legal Costs
Although the claims and counterclaim were dismissed, the court ordered Fiorini and the other plaintiffs to pay Faneyte's legal costs in the principal proceedings.
Those costs were assessed at XCG 6,000 in attorney's fees, together with XCG 250 in subsequent costs, potentially increased by XCG 150 if service of the judgment becomes necessary.
The court also provided for statutory interest if the amounts are not paid within the specified period.
The costs associated with the counterclaim were assessed at zero because it did not require additional procedural work.
The judgment represents an important ruling concerning the boundaries of public criticism in Curaçao, particularly when journalists and commentators address politically sensitive industries.
While the court did not determine the truth of the underlying allegations about gambling companies or individuals, it concluded that Faneyte's publications, viewed in their context, did not justify the restrictions and financial compensation demanded by the plaintiffs.