A civil court in Goiás has dismissed a damages claim brought against Novibet by a self-described problem gambler, drawing a clear line between operator obligations and individual responsibility in Brazil’s newly regulated betting market. The 3rd Court of the Special Civil Court of the District of Anápolis ruled the lawsuit “completely unfounded,” rejecting the plaintiff’s request for the annulment of his bets, the return of approximately R$50,000 (€8,500) in losses, and R$10,000 (€1,700) in moral damages. The case was defended for Novibet by lawyers José Frederico Manssur and Sarah Vorurka.
The plaintiff’s case
The bettor told the court he had used the Novibet platform since 2022, before Brazil regulated online gambling under Law No. 14,790/2023. He stated that what began as recreational use developed into compulsive behaviour, leading to a clinical diagnosis of Gambling Disorder, referred to in Brazil as ludopathy.
His claim rested on the argument that Novibet had been negligent by failing to deploy effective blocking and warning mechanisms required under responsible gaming policies, and that the platform should bear financial responsibility for the losses that followed. Beyond the return of his stake, the plaintiff sought moral damages on the basis that the operator’s alleged inaction had contributed to his condition.
Novibet’s defence
The operator’s lawyers argued that the bets were placed voluntarily by a legally competent adult, and that Novibet’s platform includes the responsible gaming controls expected of a licensed operator: deposit limits, behavioural alerts, and self-exclusion mechanisms. The defence maintained that providing these tools satisfies the operator’s regulatory obligations, and that their availability cannot be conflated with a duty to override the choices of an adult user.
The court’s reasoning
Judge Luciana de Araújo Camapum Ribeiro first dismissed a preliminary motion on the Special Court’s competence, finding the matter could be resolved without technical expert testimony. Moving to the merits, the judge held that betting contracts are aleatory by nature: the risk of financial loss is part of the service itself and not a defect in its provision.
The ruling stated that a diagnosis of Gambling Disorder does not, on its own, invalidate legal transactions entered into by a legally capable person. The judge found no evidence of a service failure by Novibet, no fraud, and no undue retention of funds. Holding the operator liable in the absence of such proof, she wrote, would generate legal uncertainty and could encourage other players to take risks they expect to be reimbursed for.
The decision drew a specific distinction on the scope of Ordinance SPA/MF No. 1,231/2024, which sets Brazil’s responsible gaming framework. The ordinance imposes monitoring and tooling obligations on licensed operators, the judge noted, but does not assign them the role of protecting the financial lives of their clients.
Aligned with São Paulo precedent
The Anápolis ruling cited similar decisions by the Court of Justice of São Paulo in cases brought by bettors seeking reimbursement of online gambling losses. In those rulings, the courts held that transactions had been carried out voluntarily and that operator liability did not arise. Consistency across jurisdictions strengthens the position licensed operators can take when defending comparable claims as the Brazilian market matures.
What it means for the regulated market
The decision lands in a market still finding the boundaries of its regulatory framework. Brazil began issuing federal betting authorisations on 1 January 2025 under Law No. 14,790/2023, with the Secretariat of Prizes and Bets (SPA/MF) overseeing licensing, AML compliance, and responsible gaming standards. Novibet is among the operators holding federal authorisation, alongside the wider field of <a href=”https://theigaming.eu/2025/09/15/top-10-brazils-casino-operators/”>Brazil’s licensed casino operators.
Litigation from players seeking to recover losses, particularly those citing addiction diagnoses, is a foreseeable feature of any newly regulated market. The Anápolis ruling sets out the terms on which Brazilian courts are willing to entertain such claims: clear evidence of operator failure, fraud, or non-compliance with responsible gaming obligations is required. Compliance with Ordinance SPA/MF No. 1,231/2024, including the deployment of deposit limits, alerts, and self-exclusion tools, is positioned as a shield against civil claims rather than a guarantee that losses can be passed back to the operator.
The ruling also lands against a backdrop of fiscal pressure on Brazilian operators. The <a href=”https://theigaming.eu/2025/10/12/brazils-lula-administration-proposes-doubling-betting-tax/”>Lula administration’s proposal to double the betting tax has heightened scrutiny on operator margins, making the cost and frequency of consumer litigation a material variable for the market’s commercial outlook. A defensible interpretation of Ordinance SPA/MF No. 1,231/2024 reduces one source of that exposure.
Operators and their compliance teams will be watching for appeals and parallel cases that test whether the same reasoning holds in higher courts, and whether the SPA itself signals a position on the boundary between operator obligation and personal responsibility.
Source: iGaming Brazil
