Curaçao's Gambling Reform: From GCB to CGA

The framework that came before

Before the LOK, online gambling was governed by the Landsverordening buitengaatse hazardspelen. Its Dutch abbreviation is LBH; English-language documents also use NOOGH, for National Ordinance on Offshore Games of Hazard. These labels describe the earlier legal framework, not two competing regulators.

The CGA's retrospective account places licensing and supervision under the Minister of Finance in 2019. It describes the regulator acting on the minister's behalf from 2020, followed by phased reforms beginning in 2023. The new law therefore followed an administrative transition that was already underway. CGA account of the previous legislation and reform.

1. 2023Phased reform

   Preparations under the earlier framework.

2. 2024The LOK takes effect

   A new statutory framework and CGA designation.

3. 2025Implementation

   Transitional licences and reclassification notices.

A new mandate, not a regulator created from nothing

LOK abbreviates Landsverordening op de kansspelen, translated as the National Ordinance on Games of Chance. The authority's portal records its entry into force in December 2024 and identifies the CGA as the body responsible for issuing licences and supervising the online sector. CGA portal introduction.

The relationship between the Gaming Control Board and the Curaçao Gaming Authority is set out in the legislation itself. Article 15.2 designates the existing GCB foundation as the CGA and provides continuity for its personnel and governing bodies. Article 15.7 addresses references to the old name in other legal instruments. This is institutional continuity alongside a changed statutory role, rather than evidence of two separate licensing authorities. Published ordinance, Articles 15.2 and 15.7 (PDF).

A later CGA announcement reaffirmed that the foundation established in 1999 would continue operating under the CGA name following the LOK. That helps explain why GCB wording survives in older announcements and some document addresses. The legacy wording belongs to the institution's history; it is not, on its own, a finding about the validity of any particular document. CGA statement on institutional continuity (PDF).

Why the transition had more than one milestone

A law's commencement and the completion of its administrative transition are different events. Article 15.1 provided a provisional-licence route for qualifying existing licence holders and arrangements for applications already in progress. Article 15.9 repealed the earlier ordinance while preserving its application to the specified transitional cases. The legal text did not treat every pending file as though it had been submitted afresh. LOK transitional provisions, Articles 15.1 and 15.9 (PDF).

The CGA's June 2025 announcement dealt with extensions of the provisional licences arising when the law took effect. It distinguished operators whose licences would not be extended from those receiving a further provisional period. That notice records a stage in implementation; it is not a statement of any operator's status today. CGA provisional-licence extension announcement (PDF).

A separate reclassification document addressed entities whose earlier B2C designation did not match their supplier activities under the LOK. It also identified the ending of the former sublicense system in 2025. The distinction matters historically: changing an entity's regulatory classification was not necessarily the launch of a new consumer-facing business. CGA licence-reclassification framework (PDF).

Reading the historical record in context

The reform's documents answer different questions. The ordinance establishes the legal framework. A regulator's transition notice explains a particular implementation step. A later institutional announcement clarifies how the authority operates under its new name. Reading them together gives a more useful account than treating one old announcement as a complete description of the present system.

Historical evidence also has a clear limit: it establishes what changed, not the present standing of an individual website. Keeping those questions separate avoids turning a chronology into an endorsement. For that different task, our licence-check page covers the current-record checks without repeating the history here.