Curaçao Court Dismisses Lawsuit Against Commentator Over Criticism of Gambling Industry

The Court of First Instance of Curaçao has dismissed a lawsuit brought by businessman Mario Fiorini and associated parties against economist and online commentator Luigi Angelo Faneyte over publications criticising the island’s online gambling industry. In a judgment delivered on 2 November 2026, the court ruled that Faneyte’s statements were protected by freedom of expression and did not constitute unlawful conduct towards the plaintiffs.

The dispute arose from Faneyte’s public criticism of Curaçao’s gambling sector, particularly the introduction and implementation of the National Ordinance on Games of Chance (LOK), the legislation establishing the jurisdiction’s revised gambling regulatory framework. His publications and statements raised allegations of corruption, fraud and conflicts of interest involving individuals connected with the industry and the licensing process. Among the issues he discussed were alleged relationships involving former Finance Minister Javier Silvania, Maltese investor Mario Galea and businessman Mario Fiorini.

Fiorini, together with Phaedra Hanst and IGA Trust B.V., challenged Faneyte’s publications, arguing that they contained damaging and inaccurate allegations. The plaintiffs sought the removal of the disputed statements, public corrections, restrictions on further publications and an advance payment of XCG 130,000 in damages. They maintained that Faneyte’s conduct had harmed their reputations and exceeded the permissible limits of public criticism.

In assessing the claims, the court considered the competing rights to freedom of expression and protection of reputation, taking into account principles developed by the European Court of Human Rights under Articles 10 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It placed particular emphasis on the public-interest nature of the debate surrounding Curaçao’s gambling industry, including questions concerning licensing practices, government oversight and the implementation of the new regulatory framework.

The court also considered Fiorini’s own involvement in public discussions about the gambling sector and the development of gambling legislation. His participation in efforts to influence the regulatory framework was relevant to determining the level of criticism he could reasonably be expected to tolerate. Individuals who voluntarily enter public debates on matters of general interest may be subject to greater scrutiny than private individuals who have not assumed such a public role.

Although the court acknowledged that some of Faneyte’s publications used strong language, it concluded that their content had to be assessed within the wider context of the public debate. The fact that statements were critical or potentially damaging to the reputation of individuals involved in the industry did not, by itself, make them unlawful.

An important element of the proceedings concerned criminal complaints Faneyte had submitted to the authorities in November and December 2024. These complaints referred to suspected irregularities involving gambling businesses, licensing arrangements and individuals connected with the sector. The plaintiffs argued that the complaints contained unfounded allegations and had been used to damage their reputations.

The court rejected the argument that submitting complaints containing allegations that had not been established as facts was automatically unlawful. It examined the circumstances in which the complaints had been made and their connection with the broader public debate. The judgment did not establish that the allegations contained in the complaints were true, nor did it amount to a finding that corruption, fraud or other irregularities had occurred. Rather, the court concluded that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated that Faneyte had acted unlawfully towards them.

The court consequently dismissed all claims brought by Fiorini and the other plaintiffs, including the requests for removal of publications, corrections, restrictions on future statements and financial compensation.

Faneyte had also filed a counterclaim, seeking recognition that the proceedings constituted an abusive lawsuit intended to restrict his participation in public debate. Such proceedings are commonly described as Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs), referring to legal actions alleged to be used to intimidate or financially burden journalists, researchers, activists and other individuals who scrutinise matters of public interest.

The court rejected Faneyte’s counterclaim as well, finding that he had not sufficiently established the requirements for classifying the proceedings as abusive. The dismissal of the original lawsuit therefore did not automatically mean that the court considered it a SLAPP. The judgment distinguished between an unsuccessful claim concerning public criticism and a claim that has been demonstrated to constitute an abusive use of judicial proceedings.

The court ordered Fiorini and the other plaintiffs to pay Faneyte’s legal costs in the principal proceedings, assessed at XCG 6,000 in attorney’s fees and XCG 250 in subsequent costs. An additional XCG 150 may become payable if service of the judgment is required. No additional costs were awarded in relation to the counterclaim.

The decision comes at a sensitive time for Curaçao’s gambling industry, which is undergoing a substantial regulatory transition under the LOK framework. The establishment of the Curaçao Gaming Authority (CGA) as the sector’s regulator and the introduction of a new licensing system have been accompanied by scrutiny of licensing procedures, ownership structures, regulatory transparency and the effectiveness of supervisory controls.

These issues have attracted further attention following the disclosure of unauthorised access to the CGA’s online portal. The regulator confirmed that access had been obtained in December 2025 through the use of a false identity and continued until the breach was identified in 2026. The incident raised questions about the security of the regulator’s systems and the handling of information relating to licensed operators. The CGA subsequently stated that it would strengthen its security procedures and maintained that it had followed due diligence procedures when assessing licence applications.

The court’s judgment does not resolve the wider questions surrounding Curaçao’s licensing system or determine the accuracy of the allegations made by Faneyte. Its significance lies in the legal protection afforded to criticism concerning matters of substantial public interest, particularly where the individuals concerned have themselves participated in public discussions about the relevant industry.

For Curaçao’s gambling sector, the ruling reinforces the importance of transparency and accountability during the transition to the new regulatory framework. Public scrutiny of licensing decisions, regulatory practices and potential conflicts of interest remains an important part of the debate surrounding the jurisdiction’s efforts to strengthen its international reputation. At the same time, the judgment confirms that allegations of wrongdoing and claims of abusive litigation must each be assessed on their own evidence and legal merits.

By fLEXI tEAM