Curacao Gaming License Cost and Fees
A Curaçao B2C application starts with a €4,592 base fee, followed by €47,450 in annual regulatory charges. Those amounts do not cover company services, compliance work or the cost of running the casino. Budget for those commitments and the cash needed before launch. Start by establishing whether the business needs B2C, B2B or both permissions. The Curaçao gaming license requirements distinguish operators from suppliers; the budget below separates the initial charges from the costs that recur.
CGA online gaming license fees
The CGA's LOK fee schedule, version 2.0, dated 15 October 2025 was checked on 16 October 2026.
Regulatory charge | B2C operator | B2B supplier |
|---|---|---|
Base application, one time | €4,592 | €4,592 |
Annual license fee | €24,490 | €0 |
Annual supervisory fee | €22,960 | €24,490 |
Combined annual charges | €47,450 | €24,490 |
The Curacao gaming license application fee also depends on the ownership file. The schedule lists €150 per UBO or qualified interest holder and €2,551 per listed UBO entity. Other items include:
€250 to add a main domain;
€383 for a certificate application;
€128 per person for a change or addition of a UBO or interest holder.
Apply only the charges relevant to the proposed structure.
Do not count the B2C combined annual charge again on top of its two components.
Calculated subtotals and invoice timing
On these published inputs, base application plus one full annual charge equals €52,042 for B2C or €29,082 for B2B. These are calculated regulatory subtotals, excluding additional charges and all third-party services. They are not an all-inclusive price or necessarily the amount of the first invoice.
The schedule provides for initial pro-rating and distinguishes special billing during the first 12 months after LOK enactment. Ask which period each invoice covers; do not apply that historic six-month arrangement automatically to a new 2026 application. The regulator's current invoice and any later fee amendments govern payment.
What a complete quote should contain
You should be able to identify the recipient, period and deliverable for every charge in a licensing proposal. Ask for the following breakdown before comparing totals.
Budget category | Include | How to compare it |
|---|---|---|
Regulatory | Application, annual charges and applicable additions | Same permission, period and domain scope |
Company | Formation, director, administration, accounting and filings | Setup separated from recurring work |
People and compliance | Responsible staff, policy implementation, screening and training | Named activities, hours and exclusions |
Technology | Platform, hosting, certification, security and integrations | Existing approvals distinguished from new work |
Commercial onboarding | Legal work and bank or PSP applications | Preparation fees separated from acceptance |
Operations | Support, suppliers, payment processing and acquisition | Fixed charges separated from usage or revenue shares |
Professional fees are provider quotes, not CGA tariffs. Taxes require a separate calculation for the entity and group; a license-fee table cannot establish a company's effective tax rate.
Build a cash plan before a three-year comparison
Capital, player balances and payment reserves need cash, but they should not all be booked as licensing expenses. Show them separately so the board can see both expenditure and funds that remain unavailable for ordinary operations.
Use three views:
payments before approval;
costs and reserves needed to launch;
recurring monthly cash needs after launch.
Mark each item with its trigger. A platform retainer starting on contract signature can consume cash while the licensing file is still being prepared.
For a delay scenario, multiply the monthly commitments that continue before launch by the additional months being tested. Add that amount to available funding, without assuming that player deposits can finance the shortfall. This is a planning calculation, not a forecast of CGA processing time.
Compare 36 months on equal assumptions
For an illustrative regulatory baseline, one application plus three full annual charges at unchanged rates gives:
B2C: €4,592 + 3 × €47,450 = €146,942.
B2B: €4,592 + 3 × €24,490 = €78,062.
Those calculations exclude additional regulatory items, taxes, company services, technical work and operating expenditure. They also simplify actual invoice timing. A full 36-month total cost must add the applicable setup costs, monthly services and revenue-dependent charges. Keep reserves and recoverable deposits visible beside that total.
The company and substance plan matters here: a budget extending into 2027 should address the announced implementation deadline and any applicable relief. A temporary postponement is not a sound reason to omit future staffing and premises costs.
When is a cheaper jurisdiction actually cheaper?
Compare the same products, markets and counterparties. Complete the restricted-country checks before including revenue from a proposed market in either budget. An alternative that requires a new platform integration or loses a required payment route can cost more even with a lower licensing invoice.
For an MGA proposal, use the Curacao vs Malta gaming license to include revenue-sensitive contributions rather than comparing application fees alone.
Request a Curaçao licensing cost breakdown with your business model, ownership chart, domains, target countries and provider shortlist. Ask for official charges, professional services, recurring commitments and exclusions in separate lines.
Navigating the gaming license process can be complex. Here's a streamlined guide to each step