Recent rulings handed down in several Brazilian states have affirmed that, provided the restrictions are clearly set out in the Terms and Conditions accepted by users and comply with Responsible Gaming standards, such measures are neither unlawful nor abusive. On the contrary, they reflect compliance with the legislation governing the sector and ultimately aim to protect users themselves.
In a judgment by the 16th Small-Claims Court (Juizado Especial Cível) of the Jacarepaguá District in Rio de Janeiro, the presiding judge in case No. 0800643-19.2025.8.19.0203 emphasized that account blocking, when based on the Terms and Conditions previously accepted by the user and on the Responsible Gaming policy, does not constitute abusive conduct.
The judge stressed that sector regulations actually require operators to adopt measures that prevent practices harmful to users, including closing accounts in risky situations. She also noted that the Responsible Gaming policy is a tool to avert addiction and excessive use of the service, and that operators must intervene whenever there are signs of behavior inconsistent with healthy platform use.
Likewise, the 7th Civil Court of Recife (Capital of Pernambuco) in case No. 0114525-21.2024.8.17.2001 recognized that electronic betting platforms are regulated by Law 14 790/2023 and that their Terms and Conditions expressly allow functionality restrictions such as betting-limit caps and feature deactivation.
The decision highlighted that, by joining the platform, the user accepts these conditions, which are not only clear in the adhesion contract but also common industry practice, intended to ensure operational integrity and security. Therefore, the platform may—provided the consumer is clearly informed—limit or alter functionalities at any time without violating the Consumer Protection Code.
Similarly, in case No. 0003954-70.2025.8.17.8201, the 14th Small-Claims Court of Recife, Pernambuco, rejected a request to reactivate betting-account features, including the “Cash Out” option.
The court stated: “Since the consumer was explicitly warned in the contractual terms and conditions, there is no breach of the Consumer Protection Code due to this limitation. Especially in view of the specific amounts wagered by the plaintiff, the defendant is obliged to implement measures that prevent gambling addiction and bettors’ indebtedness, in accordance with current regulations, including Ministry of Finance ordinances.”
Another case, No. 0800422-97.2025.8.15.0251, decided by the 1st Mixed Small-Claims Court of Patos, Paraíba, reaffirmed operators’ right to unilaterally close bettors’ accounts, provided prior notice is given and no balance remains to be withdrawn. The ruling stressed that the right to terminate is reciprocal and does not violate the Consumer Protection Code.
Collectively, these decisions show that Brazilian courts acknowledge the autonomy of sports-betting platforms to manage their operations as long as they provide clear information to consumers and comply with sector-specific regulations.
Recent case law indicates that bettors must be aware of and comply with the service rules they agreed to, or else risk having claims for reactivation or compensation denied.
This stance aligns with a broader trend in Brazilian jurisprudence—already well established in cases involving other digital platforms with various types of content and activities—where courts uphold operators’ rights to curb user abuses through restrictive measures, provided such measures are set out in the Terms of Use and known to those involved.
Camille Goebel Araki
Partner, Litigation Practice, TozziniFreire Advogados
Celso de Faria Monteiro
Partner, Litigation Practice, TozziniFreire Advogados
Camilla Fernandes Lopes
Associate, Gaming & eSports Practice, TozziniFreire Advogados
