Brazil’s MPDFT opens probe into Spribe over Aviator supply to licensed and illegal betting sites

The MPDFT, the Federal District and Territories Public Prosecutor’s Office, is investigating whether Spribe supplies Aviator, known locally as Jogo do Aviãozinho, to both government-authorized betting operators and illegal platforms in Brazil. For licensed PSPs and acquirers, the issue is straightforward: the same game distribution chain may be feeding regulated and unregulated operators at the same time.

1. The probe was opened by the 1st Consumer Defense Prosecutor’s Office of the MPDFT through a civil inquiry into Spribe’s activity in the Brazilian online betting market. The question under review is whether the company makes the same electronic game available to platforms with federal authorization and to operators that function illegally in the country.
2. The information cited in the investigation was reported by Mirelle Pinheiro’s column at Metrópoles, which had access to the document formalizing the probe. According to the report, the MPDFT was told that Spribe may be supplying Aviator simultaneously to authorized platforms identified by the .bet.br domain and to operators without a federal license to operate in Brazil.
3. Aviator is described in the filing as one of the most popular games in the online betting market. The prosecutor’s office says the clandestine environments would not be subject to the same controls, anti-money-laundering requirements, consumer protection rules, and oversight imposed on the regulated market.
4. The inquiry also looks at possible effects on consumers, competition, and the integrity of Brazil’s sports betting and online gaming regulatory framework. Among the points under review are possible misleading advertising, discrepancies between advertised and actual return-to-player figures, and bonus offers that may conflict with rules set by the Ministry of Finance.
5. The MPDFT notes preliminary indications that some platforms may offer bonuses tied to betting targets, a practice known as rollover. It also points to potential differences between the theoretical return promised to players and the results actually delivered. In the prosecutor’s view, licensed operators bear mandatory costs for audits, compliance, taxation, and supervision, while illegal platforms can offer the same games without those obligations, creating an uneven market.