A court ruling from the São Paulo Court of Justice (TJSP) suggests that operators may be held liable when responsible gambling control mechanisms fail to identify and protect vulnerable users.
The court rejected an appeal by Betano and ordered that R$ 61,000 (50% of the amount spent) be returned to a compulsive bettor. The ruling marks one of the first second-instance precedents applying the Consumer Protection Code to betting companies.
Today, Brazilian regulation already imposes active duties on operators to identify and mitigate risks of problem gambling.
According to specialist lawyer Udo Seckelmann, partner and head of Gambling & Crypto at Bichara e Motta Advogados, Brazilian regulation, especially Ordinance SPA/MF No. 1,231/2024, imposes on operators an active duty to monitor and intervene when there are signs of problematic or compulsive behavior, not merely to make responsible gambling tools available.
“The TJSP’s recent understanding reinforces that failure to fulfill this duty can give rise to civil liability. Although it is still too early to speak of consolidated case law, the ruling signals that simply making tools formally available may not be sufficient when there are clear signs of compulsion and a lack of appropriate measures by the operator,” he explains.
Consumer Law specialist Stefano Ribeiro Ferri comments that “the ruling also shows that the Judiciary tends to adopt a balanced solution. Although it recognized the platform’s failure in its duty of protection, the court considered that the consumer retains a certain degree of autonomy over his actions, applying the logic of contributory fault,” he explains.
“Even so, the recognition of the company’s liability represents an important advance in consumer protection in a rapidly growing market that involves significant risks for people in vulnerable situations,” he concludes.
Allegation of compulsive gambling
The lawsuit was filed by a bettor from São Paulo who presented a medical certificate for compulsive gambling. According to the defense attorney, Marco Aurélio da Silva Leite, he suffered losses of R$ 122,587.20 betting on the Betano platform.
The defense argued that the company failed in its “responsible gambling” duty, since, even with signs of “compulsive” behavior, the betting site kept advertising incentives to continue using the platform.
In the ruling, the Court understood and applied the Consumer Protection Code to establish that it is the company’s duty to protect the betting consumer from the risks of compulsive gambling, by providing self-control mechanisms.
How operators can protect themselves
The CEO of the Brazilian Company for Compulsivity Support (EBAC), Ricardo Magri, believes that the court ruling reinforces the need for strict compliance with Responsible Gambling rules. According to him, this is not an isolated case, and similar situations may occur again if operators neglect regulatory requirements, especially those set out in Ordinance 1,231.
Magri notes that rulings in the opposite direction have also been recorded. “Recently, an operator received a favorable ruling, in which the conclusion was that all the principles of Responsible Gambling had been respected and that the tools and conduct required by the ordinances had been properly implemented,” he states.
For him, it is essential to understand that “the betting offer is made to legally capable people in an adult environment.”
The executive emphasizes that allegations of compulsive gambling can arise at any time, whether or not accompanied by consistent technical reports. In such cases, he stresses that the operator’s response must be immediate and careful from the very first signs of compulsive gambling disorder.
As an example, Magri cites the work carried out by EBAC. “Our Responsible Gambling management system opens, upon first contact, what can be considered a patient record, logging every technical intervention performed by mental health professionals,” he explains.
He adds that the protection tools made available to users, such as limits and alerts, are also monitored, along with behavioral tracking carried out through the Pulse system.
“If the requirements of Ordinance 1,231 are met and the service is properly handled from the first sign onward, it is unlikely that a judge will find that the operator failed in its duty to protect the consumer from the risks of compulsive gambling,” he concludes.
The court understood that responsible gambling obligations go beyond formal compliance with legislation, requiring effective mechanisms for monitoring, prevention, and protection of vulnerable users.
Background
Betano was ordered to return 50% of the R$ 122,587.20 that the bettor spent on wagers on the operator’s platform. This was not the first time, as similar cases have occurred in Brazil in favor of the bettor, where an operator was ordered to pay just over R$206 thousand to a player diagnosed with gambling addiction by the Rio Grande do Sul courts.
The amounts involved in lawsuits against operators vary significantly according to the net loss proven by each bettor. Among recent cases, notable ones include the conviction of an operator by the 3rd Civil Court of Brasília to reimburse R$ 337 thousand to a military police officer diagnosed with gambling addiction, and two rulings by the TJSP that determined refunds of R$ 456 thousand and R$ 206 thousand, respectively.
In cases where the courts ruled in favor of the operator, as occurred with Novibet in Goiânia, the courts deemed unfounded the allegations accusing the platform of negligence in its responsible gambling policy.
The absence of consolidated case law means that the outcome of each lawsuit still depends heavily on the state, the judge, and the strength of the clinical diagnosis presented.
Betano declined to comment on the matter.