STJ rejects Lottoland’s appeal and confirms jurisdiction in Brazil
The rapporteur of the case, Justice Antonio Carlos Ferreira, rejected the appeal filed by Lottoland, which sought to transfer the case to Gibraltar, where the company is headquartered. In his opinion, the minister cited several factors that would make it unfeasible to conduct the proceedings in that country.
According to the rapporteur, requiring the plaintiff to litigate outside Brazil would impose a disproportionate burden, considering language barriers, differences in legal procedures, high costs, and geographic distance. For the justice, such a requirement would compromise the consumer's right of access to justice, contradicting consumer protection principles.
Understanding the case of the nurse from Ceará
Maria do Socorro Sombra, a resident of Quixeré (CE), filed a lawsuit against Lottoland after being blocked by the platform. According to the nurse, the winning bet was placed in October 2020, during a Powerball lottery draw in the United States. She also requested a court order to obtain proof of the bet placed.
The case began in the 2nd Civil Court of the District of Limoeiro do Norte (CE), and later, the Ceará State Court of Justice (TJCE) confirmed the competence of the Brazilian judiciary to handle the matter. The amount of BRL 1.8 billion was calculated based on the prize Maria claims she is entitled to.
Although Lottoland contested the amount, the TJCE upheld the value, sending the case to the Superior Court of Justice (STJ). At the same time, the company also filed an appeal with the Federal Supreme Court (STF).
Lottoland insists on foreign jurisdiction, but Court sees abuse
Lottoland argues that the forum selection clause in its platform rules — Gibraltar — should prevail, since, according to the company, the prize payment would be made in that jurisdiction. However, the STJ and lower courts concluded that, since the platform serves Brazilian consumers and allows bets to be placed from Brazil, it must comply with national jurisdiction.
The courts also emphasized that the clause imposing exclusive jurisdiction in Gibraltar is abusive, as it limits the consumer’s access to justice. Thus, the decision to conduct the trial in Brazil aims to protect the consumer in adhesion contracts, where users have no power to negotiate terms.
Minister Antonio Carlos Ferreira reinforced this view by stating: “Setting aside the foreign forum clause does not mean denying the validity of private autonomy in international contracts, but rather recognizing that in adhesion contracts that constitute consumer relations, the protection of the vulnerable party and the guarantee of access to justice must prevail.”
Dispute over prize amount and company’s claims
In the proceedings, Lottoland presented different scenarios regarding the prize Maria do Socorro would receive, if she were recognized as the winner. The company claimed that a ticket with five numbers plus the Powerball would yield R$244.3 million (US$44.5m). If the bet had five numbers without the Powerball, the prize would drop to R$ 11.3 million (US$2.05m).
Nonetheless, the plaintiff maintained her original claim of R$ 1.8 billion (US$330m), arguing that she had recorded the bet numbers in her personal notebook and that her ticket was indeed a winner. The case is still pending a final ruling, but it has been confirmed that the legal proceedings will take place in Brazil.
Recognition of Lottoland’s legal status in Brazil
The Ministry of Finance recognizes that Lottoland operates legally in Brazil. However, recognition of the company’s lawful activity in the country does not exempt it from complying with consumer protection laws, especially when bets are placed by Brazilian citizens through platforms in Portuguese and with marketing targeting the local audience.
Summary of the dispute:
Plaintiff: Maria do Socorro Sombra
Location: Quixeré (CE), Brazil
Platform: Lottoland
Claimed Amount: R$ 1.8 billion (US$330m)
Bet Date: October 2020
STJ Ruling: Brazilian courts have jurisdiction
Contractual Forum: Gibraltar
Final Jurisdiction: Brazil
Implications for the betting sector in Brazil
This case sets an important precedent for the betting sector in Brazil. The STJ's decision reinforces that foreign companies operating in the Brazilian market are subject to national regulations, particularly concerning consumer protection.
Moreover, the case highlights the importance of reviewing contractual clauses that may restrict the rights of Brazilian consumers, especially in digital services that cross borders.
The case of Maria do Socorro Sombra could serve as a benchmark for similar disputes, considering the rapid growth of the online betting market in Brazil, which moves billions of dollars annually.
Source: GMB
