Curaçao Licensed Casinos

Until the end of 2024, a Curaçao licence usually meant a sub-licence. Four private companies held master licences from the island, numbered 8048/JAZ, 1668/JAZ, 5536/JAZ and 365/JAZ, and those companies issued and supervised sub-licences to operators. The regulator licensed the master holder. The master holder licensed the casino. A player with a complaint was, in effect, complaining about an operator to a private firm that earned its living from that operator.

The Landsverordening op de Kansspelen, the National Ordinance on Games of Chance, shortened to the LOK, came into force on 24 December 2024 and abolished that structure along with the 1993 ordinance it rested on. Licences now come from the regulator directly, in two types: B2C for operators, B2B for suppliers. The numbers changed shape too, to OGL followed by a year, a serial and a four-digit suffix, each naming a licensee company. The serial is not a fixed width: of the sixteen OGL numbers on this page, nine run to three digits and seven to four, so OGL/2023/111/0069 and OGL/2024/1494/0942 are both in the current format.

Legacy sub-licences expired on 31 January 2025, though some sources give 1 January. The orange transitional seals expired on 15 October 2025. Since 1 January 2026, a licensee must have real presence on the island rather than a registered address.

The regulator itself is the Curaçao Gaming Authority, successor to the Curaçao Gaming Control Board, and when our compliance research last read cga.cw the header still carried the old name while the body used the new one. A footer using either is not by itself out of date.

Sixteen of the eighteen operators here carry an OGL number on our record. Of the other two, Wild.io carries 8048/JAZ and nothing newer, and BC.Game carries no licence number at all. Bitsler is inside the sixteen and carries both, an OGL number and 8048/JAZ, because two sources disagree about which regime it sits under. Our records disagree about who held 8048/JAZ as well: the Bitsler record calls it the old Curaçao eGaming master licence, while our compliance research and our published Shuffle comparison attribute it to Antillephone. That is the argument for checking the register rather than the badge.

The route runs through the operator's own complaints procedure first, then to the regulator. The regulator can act against a licensee, which is what a licence is for, and the register shows publicly whether that licence is live. What we could not establish is whether an independent dispute body with power to order an operator to pay you exists under this regime. We looked and did not find one, so we will not imply it is there. Do not plan around getting money back.

Set that against the two licences people have in mind. A UK Gambling Commission licence carries obligations the operator owes whether or not you complain: mandatory participation in GamStop, affordability checks, and rules on advertising and affiliate conduct. A Malta Gaming Authority licence carries a complaints process that can compel an operator. Curaçao carries a named regulator, a searchable register and substance requirements on the island. The difference appears at one moment: when a large withdrawal is held and the operator stops replying.

A licence is permission to operate under Curaçao's rules, not permission to serve you where you live, and it gives you no standing with a regulator in your own country. None of the operators here is recorded as accepting players in the United States: seventeen are recorded as not accepting them and one is unknown. In France the Autorité nationale des jeux licenses no online casino at all. In Great Britain the only licence that counts is the Gambling Commission's.

So the operator's own terms are the document that decides a dispute, because nothing external will override them. Read the withdrawal caps, the verification triggers and the bonus voiding clauses before you deposit. How to read casino terms covers the ones that do the damage, and our methodology sets out how we weigh a licence.

The operator's footer is the source of truth. Not this page, not any review, and not a seal image. A licence can lapse and an operator can migrate; a static page cannot know.

Read the footer text, not the badge. You want the authority, the licence number, and the name of the licensee company. Seal graphics prove nothing and many are not even linked.

Search the number on the register. The Curaçao Gaming Authority links an online gaming portal and licence register at portal.cga.cw from its own site. Our own two register-sourced records were read elsewhere: one from a licence-register page at curacaogamingauthority.org, one from a dated registry export published as a PDF. Start at cga.cw and follow the link it gives you rather than an address you remember.

Expect the register to contradict the marketing. 1win is the worked example. The number repeated across its marketing, 8048/JAZ2018-040, does not appear in the register at all. The entry that does exist is OGL/2024/587/0621, issued to 1Win N.V., and when we read it on 20 September 2026 it showed a status of 'Assessment in progress' against a nominal expiry of 2026-03-06, six months gone. It is absent from the enforcement register, so nothing has been revoked or suspended. None of that is visible from the site.

Match the licensee against the terms. A complaint is made against the company that took your money, and that company is named in the terms you accepted, not on the marketing pages. Where the footer names one entity and the terms another, the gap is the finding.

Expect one licence to cover several brands. Bitcasino.io and Livecasino.io both sit on our records under OGL/2023/111/0069, held by Moon Technologies B.V., so action against the licensee reaches both. The evidence behind the two entries is not equal, and that is worth seeing. For Livecasino.io we read the number on the regulator's own registry, row 585 of the export dated 16 September 2026. For Bitcasino.io we did not: the site did not resolve from our environment and the number comes from a third-party review.

Migrations happen quietly. Wild.io is recorded here mid-move, with archived pages naming a Curaçao entity in March 2026 and the footer reported to name a different company under an Anjouan licence by 30 April. Anjouan is a materially lighter regime, so that is a downgrade, and nobody announces it.

This list is filtered on a derived field. Know how the derivation works before leaning on it.

The licence authority we hold is whatever the researcher found written down: the operator's footer where we could read it, its terms where we could not, a third-party review where neither was reachable. Across the twenty-seven operators we publish, that one field holds twenty-one distinct strings. Twelve are on this page alone, among eighteen operators all naming the same jurisdiction. Four of those twelve form two pairs separated by nothing but the cedilla — "Curaçao Gaming Authority" against "Curaçao Gaming Authority", and the same split again on "Gaming Control Board". Normalise the cedilla and twelve strings become ten, which is still ten. Three spellings tie as the most common at three operators each, so a page filtering on any single string would list three casinos and drop fifteen.

That is why the regime is pattern-matched rather than stored as a choice, and why the messy original stays on the record: it is the evidence. The derivation inherits whatever the string got wrong and is only as current as the day it was read.

How well evidenced is the claim underneath? Of the eighteen licence records, two were read from a regulator document, four from the operator's own site or terms, ten from third-party reviews, and two carry no source at all. One of the eighteen, BC.Game, has no licence number on our record at all.

The ordering is by the trust pillar of our score rather than the overall score, because a large games library should not outrank a bad record. Documented controversies push that pillar down, and documented means our research found it, so an operator with none listed has not been cleared of anything. The pillar also awards a bonus for a tier-1 regulator against a fixed list of names. Curaçao is not on it, so nobody here receives it.