Cyberluck v Cramm (sub-licensing 'illegal'): Status, Rulings and What It Means for Players

What this case is about

Cyberluck Curaçao N.V. and others v Knipselkrant Curaçao (Nardy Cramm) is a rectification dispute that reached the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, the Supreme Court of the Netherlands acting as the cassation court for the Caribbean parts of the Kingdom (HR 22/04566 and 22/04570). It began in 2021.

The case sits among the Licensing and Administrative Court Cases because it tests how far the Curaçao sub-licensing model may be criticized. Cyberluck and associated persons asked the court to order rectification, removal and a ban on saying that Cyberluck issues "illegal sub-licences".

The statement followed a decision of the Dutch Kansspelautoriteit of 4 January 2019, which jointly fined 1X Corp N.V. and Exinvest Limited EUR 400,000 for offering games of chance without a licence on 1xbet.com and xbet-1.com.

The figure of 83 gambling sites comes from the journalist's caption, not from the regulator's decision.

Who is covered

The plaintiffs are Cyberluck Curaçao N.V., its director, Pearl Trust & Management Corporation N.V. and associated persons. The defendant is Nardy Cramm, an investigative journalist and blogger. Counsel in cassation were B.M.H. Fleuren for Cramm and M.A.M. Wagemakers for Cyberluck.

The ruling affects journalists and critics who write about Curaçao licensing. It does not give any player a claim. Related Curaçao disputes are listed in Gambling Lawsuits in Curaçao.

Is there a payout?

No payout exists in this case. The claims were dismissed, and the only money ordered was costs: Cyberluck pays NAf 1,500 for first instance, disbursements on appeal and EUR 2,555 per case in cassation.

No fund, settlement or claim process exists for players.

What the court decided

The Gerecht ordered rectification in 2021. On 11 October 2022 the Joint Court of Justice reversed (ECLI:NL:OGHACMB:2022:104 and 105).

It held that whether a handful of licence holders may issue many sub-licences "with worldwide very many game websites and an enormous turnover, without the licence holders being able to supervise properly" is a matter of opinion that a journalist may call illegal.

On 22 December 2023 the Hoge Raad dismissed Cyberluck's cassation appeals (ECLI:NL:HR:2023:1811 and 1812). On 20 May 2025 the Joint Court again rejected rectification and daily fines (ECLI:NL:OGHACMB:2025:109), on freedom of expression grounds, and held that the trustee was not entitled to take over the claim.

The balance weighed was articles 8 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The status is judgment, as of 14 November 2026.

Why it matters

The litigation documented the sub-licensing model that was later held unlawful in tort in a separate case and replaced by the LOK. The Joint Court treated the journalist's statement as opinion, and the Hoge Raad left that ruling standing.

For the broader set of cases on licensing and its limits, see the hub page Licensing and Administrative Court Cases: Operators Against Regulators and States.

Related cases

• SBGOK v Trigonon Group N.V. (Bahsine) and Cyberluck Curaçao N.V.: the Hoge Raad ruling of 20 December 2024 that a master licence holder is liable for a sub-licensee's unpaid winnings.
• Bankruptcy of Cyberluck Curaçao, 21 October 2024: the bankruptcy declared by the Gerecht, with a trustee appointed.

Questions people ask

Can a journalist call Curaçao sub-licensing illegal?

In this case, yes. The Joint Court held on 11 October 2022 that the question is a matter of opinion a journalist may express. The Hoge Raad dismissed Cyberluck's appeals on 22 December 2023.

Did Cyberluck pay anything to players in this case?

No. Cyberluck lost its claims and was ordered to pay costs. Nothing in the record sends money to players.

Was the KSA's EUR 400,000 fine part of this case?

The fine was imposed on 1X Corp N.V. and Exinvest Limited on 4 January 2019, not on Cyberluck. The court record uses it as background to the journalist's article.