The Small Claims Court of Senhor do Bonfim (BA) ruled against the lawsuit filed against Ana Gaming, the company responsible for the 7K, Vera.bet, and Cassino.bet brands.
According to the case, a bettor demanded the return of the amounts wagered, as well as compensation for moral damages, claiming gambling addiction and that the operator failed to adopt measures to prevent him from continuing to place bets.
Application of responsible gambling measures
Throughout the review of the case, the judge responsible, Jéssica Cavalcanti Barros Ribeiro, requested documentation from the company regarding the bettor’s activity in question and how the responsible gambling measures were applied.
The company, in turn, proved that the mechanisms for limiting deposits, losses, time control, and self-exclusion were duly disclosed to the user.
Furthermore, it was confirmed that the bettor used the self-exclusion tool and that the system immediately applied the necessary measures to prevent new requests.
And there was no evidence that the company knew of the user’s health condition while he was betting on the platform.
Losses are part of the risk of betting
For the decision, the judge pointed out that the bettor made a profit on one of the operator’s sites and registered and made deposits on his own, indicating that he was able to place bets voluntarily.
Article 14, Paragraph 3, item II, of the Consumer Protection Code (Law No. 8,078/1990) was cited to support the verdict in favor of Ana Gaming.
The exclusive fault of the consumer was recognized, absolving the operator of any responsibility in the case itself.
This type of decision happens when the courts obtain robust evidence that exempts the accused from responsibility.
In this case, Ana Gaming proved that all protection mechanisms were applied and that it was not informed of the user’s clinical condition.
Exclusive consumer fault in different rulings
The issue of the consumer’s exclusive fault, as indicated in the Consumer Protection Code, has been appearing consistently in rulings regarding betting sites.
However, the understanding is not always the same. For example, a betting site was ordered to pay R$206,000 to a player in RS, since it was proven that the platform should have identified the signs of abnormal behavior.
This ruled out the idea of exclusive consumer fault, especially due to the high volume of bets, excessive losses, and high frequency of use of the betting site.
The divergence between the rulings may lead the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) to standardize the understanding of betting sites’ responsibility in cases of gambling addiction.