Parimatch has been ordered to pay $19,630 after failing to prove a multi-accounting violation by a player after confiscating their deposit.
Parimatch has been ordered to pay $19,630 after failing to prove a multi-accounting violation by a player after confiscating their account balance.
Parimatch was found to have unlawfully confiscated a player’s account balance without sufficient evidence, with an island court ordering the casino operator Suncast Furore NV and ex-master licence holder Cyberluck Curaçao NV to jointly pay $19,630 to a player advocacy group.
The Court of First Instance of Curaçao ruled on 13 March 2023 the online casino had failed to justify seizing funds from the player’s account in June 2021, although the judgement was only published yesterday (1 September).
The case was brought by the Foundation for the Advocation of Victims of Online Gambling (SBGOK), which had taken over the claim.
The court found that Parimatch’s general terms and conditions were invalid because they were not properly made available to players, and that the operator failed to prove any wrongdoing by the player.
Parimatch had accused the individual of violating rule 80.4 of its terms and conditions, specifically alleging multi-accounting.
The court said: “The defendants have not proven the violation or offered to prove it (in a timely manner).”
The casino’s main evidence was that the player had gambled from multiple IP addresses, but SBGOK successfully argued this was due to the use of dynamic IP addresses by internet providers in Belarus.
Parimatch and Cyberluck both liable
Cyberluck, which used to hold the master licence prior to the abolishment of the licensing category last year as part of Curaçao’s LOK reforms, was found jointly liable despite having sub-licensed operations to Suncast Furore.
The court determined that Cyberluck could not escape its regulatory obligations by outsourcing operations to third parties.
The judge added: “Cyberluck cannot legally avoid its obligations under the permit conditions by contractually assigning itself the (in any case, vaguely defined, reactive, and to a limited extent, binding) role of supervisor of the ‘intermediate company,’ as it intended in the agreement…”
The judgment noted that consumer protection was a key purpose of Curaçao’s gambling regulations, citing the original legislative intent to prevent damage to the jurisdiction’s reputation in international markets.
The court also applied strict liability principles, finding that both companies exhibited sufficient unity in their operations to justify holding Cyberluck responsible for Suncast’s actions.
The Parimatch website’s reference to Cyberluck’s licence created reasonable public expectations about regulatory oversight, it ruled.
NEXT.io has reach out to Parimatch for comment.