Brazil Court Rejects Gambling Loss Compensation Claim Against Novibet, Citing Individual Responsibility

A civil court in the state of Goiás has dismissed a compensation lawsuit filed against Novibet by a plaintiff who identified himself as a problem gambler, establishing a firm judicial distinction between the duties of betting operators and the responsibility of users within Brazil’s evolving regulated gambling framework. The ruling was issued by the 3rd Court of the Special Civil Court in the District of Anápolis, which concluded that the case was “completely unfounded” and rejected all claims submitted by the plaintiff, including demands to annul his betting activity, refund approximately R$50,000 (around €8,500) in losses, and award R$10,000 (around €1,700) in moral damages. The legal defense for Novibet was conducted by attorneys José Frederico Manssur and Sarah Vorurka.

In his submission to the court, the plaintiff explained that he had been active on the Novibet platform since 2022, before the implementation of Brazil’s formal online gambling regulatory framework under Law No. 14,790/2023. He stated that his initial engagement with betting began as recreational activity but progressively developed into compulsive behaviour, eventually resulting in a clinical diagnosis of Gambling Disorder, known locally as ludopathy. His argument centered on the assertion that Novibet had acted negligently by failing to implement sufficiently effective blocking systems and warning mechanisms that would have complied with responsible gaming obligations. On this basis, he argued that the operator should be held financially accountable for his losses, claiming that the company’s alleged failure to intervene directly contributed to the escalation of his condition. In addition to seeking reimbursement of his losses, he also requested moral damages, arguing that the operator’s inaction had played a role in the harm he experienced.

The defence presented by Novibet rejected these claims in full, arguing that all wagers were placed voluntarily by an adult legally capable of making his own financial decisions. The operator’s legal team maintained that its platform already provides the responsible gaming tools required under licensing conditions, including deposit limits, behavioural monitoring alerts, and self-exclusion features intended to help users manage or restrict their gambling activity. According to the defence, the availability of such mechanisms satisfies all applicable regulatory obligations imposed on licensed operators. They further argued that the presence of these safeguards cannot be interpreted as a legal duty for the operator to override or invalidate the autonomous choices of users who voluntarily engage in betting activities, even where losses occur.

Ultimately, the court upheld the operator’s position, reinforcing the legal interpretation that responsibility for gambling decisions rests with the individual user when services are accessed voluntarily through a regulated platform.

By fLEXI tEAM