Curaçao court dismisses lawsuit against gambling critic
The ruling emphasises freedom of expression in public debates over gambling regulation and licensing reform.
Key takeaways
- A Curaçao court dismissed a lawsuit brought by Mario Fiorini, Phaedra Hanst and IGA Trust B.V. against commentator Luigi Angelo Faneyte.
- The plaintiffs sought content removals, corrections and XCG130,000 in damages over comments related to Curaçao’s gambling sector.
- The court ruled that Faneyte’s publications were protected by freedom of expression and did not constitute unlawful conduct.
- Judges found that gambling regulation and licensing reform are matters of significant public interest and that public figures must tolerate a higher degree of criticism.
- The court did not determine whether Faneyte’s allegations were true, only that there were insufficient grounds to restrict his speech or award damages.
A Curaçao court has dismissed legal action against commentator and journalist Luigi Angelo Faneyte, ruling that his criticism of the island’s gambling sector was protected by freedom of expression. The case centred on allegations that his publications and public comments damaged the reputations of businessman Mario Fiorini and related parties, but the court concluded that the comments fell within the boundaries of lawful public debate on gambling regulation and licensing.
Curaçao.- A court in Curaçao has dismissed a lawsuit brought by businessman Mario Fiorini and several related parties against commentator and journalist Luigi Angelo Faneyte, ruling that his commentary on the island’s online gambling sector was protected by freedom of expression. The Court of First Instance of Curaçao rejected requests from Fiorini, Phaedra Hanst and igaming company IGA Trust B.V. to have publications removed, corrected and compensated through an advance damages payment of XCG130,000 (about €64,000).
The plaintiffs argued that Faneyte had made inaccurate and damaging claims regarding their alleged involvement in corruption, fraud and controversies surrounding Curaçao’s gambling licensing system. However, the court found that the publications did not amount to unlawful conduct. Faneyte, an economist, lecturer and online commentator, has been a prominent critic of Curaçao’s gambling sector and has regularly commented on regulatory reform and licensing issues.
The dispute centred on a series of articles, public statements and criminal complaints relating to the gambling industry, including discussions surrounding the former licensing regime and the introduction of the National Ordinance on Games of Chance (LOK). A particular point of contention was Faneyte’s commentary following a January 2024 interview featuring Fiorini, as well as criminal complaints he submitted in late 2024 concerning alleged irregularities in gambling licensing and industry practices.
In assessing the case, the court weighed the right to freedom of expression against the protection of personal reputation. It concluded that Curaçao’s gambling sector and its relationship with government regulation are matters of significant public interest. The judgment also noted that Fiorini had participated in public debates concerning gambling legislation and regulatory reform. As a result, the court found that he should be expected to tolerate a higher degree of criticism than a private individual not involved in public policy discussions.
As for Faneyte’s criminal complaints, the court rejected the argument that they were unlawful simply because the allegations contained within them had not been proven. Importantly, the ruling does not amount to judicial confirmation that the allegations raised by Faneyte were true. Rather, the court found insufficient grounds to conclude that he had acted unlawfully in publishing his views and filing the complaints.
All of the remedies sought by the plaintiffs were dismissed, including demands for content removal, publication bans, corrections and damages. The court also rejected a counterclaim brought by Faneyte, in which he sought a declaration relating to the alleged misuse of legal proceedings and references to anti-SLAPP protections. The plaintiffs were ordered to pay Faneyte’s legal costs in the main proceedings.
FAQs
Why was the lawsuit against Luigi Angelo Faneyte dismissed?
The court found that Faneyte’s publications and comments about Curaçao’s gambling sector were protected by freedom of expression and did not amount to unlawful conduct.
What remedies were the plaintiffs seeking?
The plaintiffs sought the removal and correction of content, publication restrictions and an advance damages payment of XCG130,000.
Did the court rule that Faneyte’s allegations were true?
No. The court specifically did not rule on the truth of the allegations. It only concluded that there was insufficient basis to find that Faneyte had acted unlawfully.
Why did the court place importance on the public interest aspect of the case?
The judges found that gambling regulation and licensing reform are matters of significant public interest. They also noted that individuals who actively participate in public policy debates can be expected to face a higher level of public criticism.
