- Status
- Dismissed (dismissed)
- As of
- 28 Jul 2026 · read from the court record
- Court
- Gemeenschappelijk Hof van Justitie van Aruba, Curaçao, Sint Maarten en van Bonaire, Sint Eustatius en Saba (Joint Court of Justice) · Appellate court
- Docket
- CUR2022H00195 (appeal); CUR202100742 (first instance)
- Judge
- S.M. Christiaan
- Filed
- 8 Mar 2021
- Type
- Individual suit, player refund litigation (germany and austria)
- Money
- first instance: EUR 65,000 plus statutory interest from 12 December 2019, NAf 3,000 collection costs, NAf 6,674.17 costs; on appeal (28 July 2026) claim dismissed and SBGOK ordered to pay SGI Cg 7,000 (first instance) and Cg 10,500 + Cg 2,800 + Cg 712.78 (appeal)
- Payout
- No payout exists as of 14 Nov 2026
Status words follow the court record: a complaint states one side's allegations, only the court's orders decide anything. Filing a settlement claim is always free.
What this case is about
An early merits judgment that fixed three rules later followed throughout the Curaçao case law: the licence conditions make Curaçao law govern the casino-player relationship (foreign choice-of-law clauses are invalid), winnings from licensed online gambling are legally enforceable despite art. 7A:1807 BW, and 'duplicate account' and similar terms are voidable if the operator cannot show the player had a reasonable opportunity to read them. On 28 July 2026 the Joint Court (ECLI:NL:OGHACMB:2026:237) reversed this judgment and dismissed the claim, holding the tick-box general terms validly incorporated; the 2022 first-instance rule on enforceable gambling debts is therefore no longer the last word.
What this case is about
SBGOK v SG International N.V. is a Curaçao civil case over EUR 65,000 in withheld online casino winnings, decided at first instance on 13 June 2022 (CUR202100742, ECLI:NL:OGEAC:2022:193) and on appeal on 28 July 2026 (CUR2022H00195, ECLI:NL:OGHACMB:2026:237).
SBGOK sued as assignee of a Belgian player. The defendant operated the Webbyslot casino under Antillephone N.V.'s licence. Player-money disputes of this kind are explained for Germany and Austria in Online Casino Refund Litigation in Germany and Austria.
The player opened accounts on 25 June and 29 October 2019, and a balance of about EUR 71,000 was withheld in December 2019 for a "duplicate account". The operator refunded EUR 5,850 in deposits on 17 January 2020. SBGOK claimed EUR 65,000 by letter of 11 July 2020 and filed on 8 March 2021.
Who is covered
The parties are SBGOK, assignee of a Belgian player (counsel R.E.F.A. Bijkerk), and SG International N.V. (counsel C.A.D. Jänsch). The first-instance judge was S.M. Christiaan. On appeal, the Joint Court judges were C.G. ter Veer, E.W.A. Vonk and J. de Boer.
The ruling matters to players of Curaçao-licensed online casinos whose accounts are closed for "duplicate account" terms. More cases are listed in Gambling Lawsuits in Curaçao.
Is there a payout?
No payout exists in this case. The EUR 65,000 award made in 2022 was reversed on 28 July 2026, and the claim was dismissed. SBGOK was ordered to pay the operator's costs: Cg 7,000 for the first instance and Cg 10,500, Cg 2,800 and Cg 712.78 for the appeal.
The first-instance award had been EUR 65,000 plus statutory interest from 12 December 2019, NAf 3,000 collection costs and NAf 6,674.17 in costs. See Class Action Payout Per Person for how real payouts in settlements compare.
What the court decided
As of 14 November 2026 the status is dismissed, from the appeal judgment of 28 July 2026. The Joint Court of Justice reversed the 2022 judgment and dismissed SBGOK's claim, holding that the tick-box general terms were validly incorporated. The duplicate-account and assignment-ban clauses were upheld.
The 2022 first-instance court had decided the opposite way. It held that the licence conditions make Curaçao law govern the relationship, that the Scottish choice-of-law clause (art. 34.1) was invalid, and that winnings from licensed online gambling are enforceable despite art. 7A:1807 BW. No later step is recorded.
Why it matters
The 2022 judgment fixed three rules that later Curaçao cases followed, and the 2026 appeal judgment means the first-instance rule on enforceable gambling debts is no longer the last word. For players, the lesson in this record is that terms accepted by tick box can bind them.
For how courts treat lost money across countries, see Can You Get Gambling Losses Back?
Questions people ask
Did the Webbyslot player get the EUR 65,000?
No. The court of first instance ordered EUR 65,000 plus interest in 2022, but the Joint Court reversed that judgment on 28 July 2026 and dismissed the claim. No payout exists in this case.
Why did the appeal court side with the operator?
The Joint Court held that the tick-box general terms were validly incorporated, and it upheld the duplicate-account and assignment-ban clauses. The operator's costs were awarded against SBGOK.
Are gambling debts enforceable in Curaçao?
The 2022 first-instance judgment said winnings from licensed online gambling are enforceable. The 2026 appeal reversed that judgment, so this case is no longer a clean authority for the rule.
Related cases
- Stichting Belangenbehartiging Gedupeerden Online Kansspelen (SBGOK) v Trigonon Group N.V. (Bahsine) and Cyberluck Curaçao N.V.: Hoge Raad, 20 December 2024 (ECLI:NL:HR:2024:1910), master licence holder liable for a sub-licensee's unpaid winnings, status judgment.
- Hungarian player v Bellona N.V. and Antillephone N.V.: HUF 183,588,499.88 in winnings, Antillephone liable as licence holder, 11 December 2023 (ECLI:NL:OGEAC:2023:353), status judgment.
Who is involved
Plaintiffs: SBGOK (assignee of a Belgian player)
| Defendants | SG International N.V. (operator of Webbyslot under Antillephone N.V.'s 1996 licence) |
|---|---|
| Class counsel | R.E.F.A. Bijkerk |
| Defense counsel | C.A.D. Jänsch |
| Judge | S.M. Christiaan |
| Claims |
|
If you need a lawyer, start with the court-appointed class counsel named above or the bar association referral service of your state or country. This site does not refer readers to law firms.
Is there a payout?
No payout exists in this case as of 14 Nov 2026. The court record shows first instance: EUR 65,000 plus statutory interest from 12 December 2019, NAf 3,000 collection costs, NAf 6,674.17 costs; on appeal (28 July 2026) claim dismissed and SBGOK ordered to pay SGI Cg 7,000 (first instance) and Cg 10,500 + Cg 2,800 + Cg 712.78 (appeal).
What happens next
No future date is on the record we hold. The case is closed on the record we hold; later appeals or enforcement steps would be added here.
Timeline
2 dated steps on record, oldest first. Future dates come from court notices and can move.
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 8 Mar 2021 | Filed |
| 28 Jul 2026 | Dismissed |
Documents and sources
2 primary sources (court file, administrator notice, regulator) and 0 secondary. Press is supporting evidence only.
- Docket: uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl
| What it supports | Source | Type | Retrieved |
|---|---|---|---|
| judgment 13 June 2022, CUR202100742, facts and operative part; inleidend verzoekschrift op 8 maart 2021 ter griffie ingediend; 13 June 2022, CUR202100742, filed 8 March 2021, judge S.M. Christiaan, Bijkerk v Jänsch; Belgian player, accounts 25 June and 29 October 2019, balance EUR 71,000 December 2019, EUR 5,850 deposits refunded 17 January 2020, claim EUR 65,000 (letter 11 July 2020); Scottish choice-of-law clause (art. 34.1) rejected, Antillephone licence; EUR 65,000 plus interest from 12 December 2019, NAf 3,000, NAf 6,674.17 | uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl | primary | 14 Nov 2026 |
| Joint Court 28 July 2026 (CUR2022H00195, first instance CUR202100742) reversed the 13 June 2022 judgment, dismissed SBGOK's claim and ordered SBGOK to pay SGI's costs: Cg 7,000 (first instance), Cg 10,500 fee, Cg 2,800 court fee and Cg 712.78 service costs (appeal); the duplicate-account and assignment-ban clauses were upheld; final decision is the Joint Court judgment of 28 July 2026 (judges C.G. ter Veer, E.W.A. Vonk, J. de Boer); level should become appeal, case_type appeal; header: Zaaknummer hoger beroep CUR2022H00195, Zaaknummer eerste aanleg CUR202100742; dictum: vernietigt het bestrede | uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl | primary | 14 Nov 2026 |
Related cases
2 cases in the record share parties, claims or a settlement with this one.
| Case | Court | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Cyberluck master-licence liability (HR 2024) | Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands, Caribbean cassation) | Judgment entered |
| Antillephone liable (HUF 183.6m) | Gerecht in eerste aanleg van Curaçao (Court of First Instance of Curaçao) | Judgment entered |
Last checked against the sources on 14 Nov 2026. Found an error? Tell us and we correct the record with a dated note.