Curaçao court dismisses lawsuit against gaming critic Luigi Faneyte
Court ruled Faneyte’s regulatory criticism protected under free expression
Key Takeaways
- The Court of First Instance of Curaçao dismissed the lawsuit against Luigi Angelo Faneyte on 6 November 2026.
- Claimants Mario Fiorini, Phaedra Hanst and IGA Trust B.V. sought removal, correction and XCG130,000 (≈€64,000) in advance damages; the court rejected all requests.
- The court held that Faneyte’s publications on gaming regulation and licensing reform were protected by freedom of expression.
- The court did not rule on the factual truth of Faneyte’s allegations and ordered the claimants to pay Faneyte’s legal costs.
The Court of First Instance of Curaçao ruled on 6 November 2026 that the publications and comments of economist and commentator Luigi Angelo Faneyte about the island’s gaming sector are protected by freedom of expression and do not constitute unlawful conduct. The claimants — businessman Mario Fiorini, Phaedra Hanst and the company IGA Trust B.V. — sought the removal or correction of content and an advance payment of damages of XCG130,000 (about €64,000), and the court rejected all requests.
Basis of the ruling
The dispute focused on a series of articles, public statements and criminal complaints filed by Faneyte which, the claimants alleged, harmed their reputation and contained inaccurate assertions about alleged corruption and fraud linked to Curaçao’s licensing system. The court assessed the balance between the right to freedom of expression and protection of personal honour and concluded that matters concerning gaming regulation and reform of the licensing system are an issue of public interest.
The court further noted that Mario Fiorini had actively participated in public debates on legislation and regulatory reform, and therefore must tolerate a greater degree of criticism than a strictly private individual. The tribunal did not determine the truth of Faneyte’s allegations; it limited itself to concluding that there was no sufficient basis to restrict his expressions or to grant the claimed damages.
Claims dismissed and costs
The claimants expressly requested:
the removal and correction of publications;
restrictions on future publications;
an advance payment of damages of XCG130,000 (approximately €64,000).
The court dismissed all of those claims. It also rejected the counterclaim filed by Faneyte, in which he sought a declaration regarding alleged abuse of legal process and referred to mechanisms protecting against strategic lawsuits against public participation (anti‑SLAPP). Finally, the court ordered that the claimants pay Faneyte’s legal costs in the main proceedings.
Context of the publications and criminal complaints
Faneyte, an economist and lecturer as well as an online commentator, has been a frequent critic of Curaçao’s gaming sector and has often intervened in debates on regulatory reform and licensing matters, including commentary on the previous licensing regime and the entry into force of the National Ordinance on Games of Chance (LOK). Part of the conflict arose after an interview published in January 2024 with Fiorini and from criminal complaints Faneyte filed at the end of 2024 regarding alleged irregularities in licensing grants and sector practices.
The court also noted that the mere filing of criminal complaints does not automatically render the action unlawful when allegations remain unproven. That distinction was decisive in rejecting the claimants’ argument about the alleged unlawfulness of the complaints filed by Faneyte.
Procedural consequences and final observations
The ruling does not constitute a judicial finding on the material truth of the accusations Faneyte has made. Rather, it determines that, for the legal assessment needed to impose restrictions or awards of damages, the protection of public debate prevailed over the admissibility of the measures sought by the claimants. The court set aside the requests for removal, correction, publication bans and financial compensation.
Unchanged, according to the decision, are ongoing criminal and administrative avenues that may investigate regulatory or licensing practices in Curaçao. The episode highlights, within the judicial process, the tension between freedom of expression and protection of reputation in matters involving gaming regulation and the interaction between private actors and authorities.
Miguel Sandoval, Regulatory Correspondent
Debates on regulatory reform and licensing and related news are available for consultation in our section of [news](/news).
Frequently Asked Questions
Why was the lawsuit against Luigi Faneyte dismissed?
The court concluded that Faneyte’s publications and comments on the gaming sector were protected by freedom of expression and did not amount to unlawful conduct. It found the issues raised were of public interest and that participants in public debate must tolerate greater criticism.
What remedies did the claimants seek?
The claimants sought removal and correction of content, prohibitions on future publications and an advance payment of damages of XCG130,000 (about €64,000). The court rejected all these requests.
Does the ruling mean Faneyte’s accusations are true?
No. The court did not determine the material truth of Faneyte’s accusations. The decision focused on whether restrictions or damages were justified and found there was insufficient basis to impose them.
Were there any procedural consequences after the ruling?
Yes. The court dismissed the claimants’ claims and also rejected Faneyte’s counterclaim, ordering the claimants to pay Faneyte’s legal costs. Ongoing criminal or administrative investigations into licensing practices remain unaffected by this civil ruling.
Tags
About the author
Miguel Sandoval
Regulatory Affairs Correspondent
Miguel Sandoval tracks gambling legislation, licensing, and regulator enforcement — from Spain's DGOJ and the Latin American authorities to the UKGC, the MGA, and the state-by-state map in North America. The reports answer three questions precisely — what changed, where, and who it affects — with jurisdictions, dates, and penalties cited exactly as published. Operators and compliance officers read Miguel Sandoval to know which rulebook moved before their next meeting.
More from Miguel Sandoval
