A claim has been filed against the gambling company that operates the online casino, but the master license holder is also directly involved in the case. The master license holder is responsible for the actions of its sublicensees, SBGOK states. This ensures that the master license holder is responsible can be held if an online casino does not pay its players, the judge previously ruled. The master licensees in question are Cyberluck and Gaming Services Provider. 1xBet must pay $ 255,000 Cyberluck was held responsible by the judge for the online casinos Betmaster, 1XBet, and GoldWin Casino. The latter recently received a fine of millions from the Gaming Authority for illegally offering games of chance to Dutch players. In the lawsuits, the SBGOK demanded money back from the aforementioned casinos on behalf of players. The foundation claimed € 27,935 from BetMaster.com, an amount of €66,400 from GoldWin's parent company GDL Group, and $255,000 from 1XBet. The SBGOK was right in all three lawsuits. In one of the lawsuits, the opposing party, Cyberluck and the GDL Group of GoldWin, had a striking argument. According to them, the deed of assignment, with which the player transfers his claim to the SBGOK, was not valid The player allegedly indicated on the deed of assignment that he came from Vienna. According to GoldWin, this was not correct, because the player had entered in his player account that he came from Vienna. The judge explained to the gambling company that it was the same city. and the defense rejected. Unclear what amount must be paid. SBGOK's last lawsuit that was published was a case against Galaxy Group Limited, the parent company of BetJoe.com, and master license holder Gaming Services Provider. A Croatian gambler said he still owed € 11,194.30 in his account when the online casino closed its doors. The SBGOK was able to demonstrate this during the lawsuits with the help of a screenshot of the website. However, the online casino came with different information, because according to the gambling company it was only € 2,057. To demonstrate this, the online casino had a statement with the player's deposits and withdrawals. However, the total was not clearly legible, as can be read in the ruling. That the online casino, or master license holder Gaming Services Provider , the player must pay is certain. However, the judge could not clarify what amount must be paid. The online casino has therefore been asked to provide an overview of the Croat's account history: "The case is referred to the following call a docket hearing at which GSP must submit a true overview of the progress of the player's account, which shows the final balance of his account at the casino. SBGOK will then be able to comment on this in a response document. After that, the case is ready for a final judgment. " Judge in the case of SBGOK against Galaxy Group and Gaming Services Provider. Online casino continued after sublicense withdrawal. The last court case that was published is a case between an American gambler and Gaming Services Provider. The American claims an amount of $ 123,000 from the gambling site Topbet .eu. This online casino was in possession of a Curaçao sublicense until August 2018 and that is why GSP was also taken to court. The player had won an amount of $ 123,000 at the online casino, but was not paid out. However, GSP refused to pay for the costs, because the online casino no longer had a sublicense when the winnings were made in 2020. According to the player, however, it was also said at that time that games of chance were offered under a Curaçao license. According to the The judge should have ensured that GSP, even after revoking the sublicence, had to ensure that TopBet's parent company, Orient, adhered to the rules. The company did not do this sufficiently, the judge ruled: "GSP should also have ensured - or at least ensure that Orient did so – that players were informed that 'their' casino (whether or not) was being continued under a different license and a different jurisdiction. Undoubtedly, such a continuation led to the applicability of other general conditions on the agreements with players, and they should also have been informed about this. Because GSP failed to do all this, as it were 'pulled the plug' without aftercare, [plaintiff] could (continue to) be under the assumption that it Orient casino where he played was protected by the supervision of the license holder, to be sanctioned if necessary by the country of Curaçao."Quote from ruling.The player must therefore be paid the claimed $ 123,000 from the gambling company. In addition, the master licensee is also liable here, despite GSP's claims that TopBet no longer had a sublicense in 2020. The master licensee was unable to prove this.